Pennsylvania General Power Of Attorney For Care And Custody Of Child Or Children: Fill & Download for Free

Civil Commitment in the United StatesGo to:https://www.onlinedollarincome.com/2018/12/500-high-social-bookmarking-sites-list.htmlAbstractThis article reviews the academic literature on the psychiatric practice of civil commitment. It provides an overview of the history of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization in the United States—from the creation of the first asylum and the era of institutionalization to the movement of deinstitutionalization. The ethical conflict that the practice of involuntary hospitalization presents for providers, namely the conflict between the ethical duties of beneficence and respect for patient autonomy, is presented. The evolution of the United States commitment standards, from being based on a right to treatment for patients with mental illness to being based on dangerousness, as well as the implications that the changes in commitment criteria has had on patients and society, are discussed. Involuntary hospitalization of patient populations that present unique challenges for psychiatry (e.g., not guilty by reason of insanity acquittees, sex offenders, and individuals with eating disorders, substance use disorders, and personality disorders) is discussed. Finally, an overview of outpatient commitment is provided. By reading this article, one will learn the history of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization in the United States and gain an understanding of the ethical issues that make civil commitment one of the most controversial practices in modern psychiatry.Keywords: Civil commitment, involuntary hospitalization, institutionalization, deinstitutionalizationGo to:https://www.onlinedollarincome.com/2018/12/500-high-social-bookmarking-sites-list.htmlIntroductionMany people with psychiatric illnesses spend much of their lives struggling with disorders that affect the most fundamental aspects of the human experience—their perceptions of themselves and the world in which they live. The perceptual distortions caused by disorders of mood, thought, and cognition can interfere with a person's functioning to such a severe degree that treatment is critical to the safety of the affected individual and of others. For example, a person with depression may see him- or herself as worthless and, in his or her despair, make efforts to end his or her life. A woman in a manic state, acting in accordance with a grandiose belief of indestructibility, may engage in erratic, unsafe driving that puts her life, as well as the lives of other drivers, in jeopardy. Someone with schizophrenia may become overwhelmed by paranoid delusions and hallucinations that command him or her to act violently against others. And an individual suffering from dementia may become so out of touch with his or her basic needs that the individual fails to provide him- or herself a level of nourishment and self care that is necessary for survival.Despite the clear need for psychiatric intervention in cases such as these, providing necessary treatment to persons with mental illnesses is often not an easy task. Unfortunately, the same disorders that impair a person's mood, thoughts, and functioning also impair his or her insight and judgment, making refusal of care common in psychiatry. Hospitalization is often a critical first step in initiation of psychiatric care. For this reason, involuntary hospitalization, or civil commitment, has been a mainstay of psychiatric care since the inception of our field. It continues to be a mainstay of treatment even today, although provisions for outpatient involuntary treatment have been created in an effort to avoid hospitalization when possible yet ensure that individuals get the care that they need.Go to:https://www.onlinedollarincome.com/2018/12/500-high-social-bookmarking-sites-list.htmlEthical Issues in Involuntary HospitalizationOur society defines the role of the physician in terms of our professional responsibilities to patients. Physicians' professional responsibilities are derived from the ethical principles of medical practice dating back to the time of Hippocrates.1https://www.onlinedollarincome.com/2018/12/500-high-social-bookmarking-sites-list.htmlThe first and foremost principle of medical ethics is the principle of nonmaleficence—the physician's duty to “do no harm.”1,2One way that physicians can avoid harming patients is by showing respect for their autonomy (i.e., by allowing patients to make their own decisions regarding whether to accept or reject recommended medical care). Physicians are also bound by a professional obligation to help patients. This duty is prescribed by the ethical principle of beneficence,1,2which requires that doctors provide to patients services that will benefit them.Psychiatrists often encounter cases in which patients are in grave need of treatment yet adamantly refuse to cooperate with the provision of the necessary treatment. In these cases, psychiatrists face the challenge of weighing their professional obligations of nonmalevolence and beneficence in deciding whether to hospitalize patients against their wishes. When an individual is suffering from a severe mental illness that grossly distorts his perception of reality, it is often clear that he or she has lost the usual capacity for making decisions in his or her best interest. In this case, the individual is not truly autonomous, and the decision to override his or her expressed wishes in favor of hospitalization and treatment to benefit the patient and restore autonomy does not cause much conflict for the psychiatrist. In other cases, involving, for example, patients with eating disorders, substance abuse disorders, and personality disorders, which do not necessarily grossly impact individuals' reality testing, the weighing of ethical obligations can be a very difficult task.Go to:The State's Role in Involuntary HospitalizationFortunately, psychiatrists do not struggle alone or without guidance when making the difficult decision of recommending involuntary hospitalization. State governments—acting on the basis of two major legal principles—have enacted laws defining the standards for involuntary treatment, which serve as guidelines for physicians confronted with patients who are refusing hospital admission.There are two main legal principles that underly the state's interest in the process of civil commitment. The first of these is parens patriae Parens patriae is a Latin term that means “parent of the country.” It refers to a doctrine from English common law that assigns to the government a responsibility to intervene on behalf of citizens who cannot act in their own best interest.3,4,13–16A second legal principle, police power, requires a state to protect the interests of its citizens.4,5,13–16Whereas physicians have a duty to people other than our patients in only very narrow circumstances (those involving a clear and imminent threat to an identifiable person or persons),6the state, on the basis of police powers, has a duty to consider the welfare of all people living within its boundaries. Because of this obligation to all citizens, the state has the right to write statutes for the benefit of society at large, even when providing this benefit may come at the cost of restricting the liberties of certain individuals.5Go to:Institutionalization of the Mentally IllIn 1403, London's Bedlam Hospital, which had been in operation since the mid-1200s, began operating an asylum for the provision of inpatient care to people with mental illnesses.4,7Several centuries later, inpatient psychiatric facilities started to emerge in the United States.4Prior to the inception of American asylums, people with mental illness were relegated to prisons and shelters for the poor. In these settings, the mentally ill were warehoused to ensure the safety of the community and were not offered treatment of any kind.8Between 1817 and 1824, four privately funded asylums were established in the northeastern states of Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.7,9Subsequently, public asylums were opened in the southern United States,9and the widespread establishment of state-run mental institutions soon followed.8https://www.onlinedollarincome.com/2018/12/500-high-social-bookmarking-sites-list.htmlMost persons who ended up in American asylums were patients suffering from dementia, seizure disorders, diseases involving paralysis, or advanced neurosyphilis. These individuals were incurable by the available treatments of the day. Asylums thus became long-term homes for chronic patients whose care consisted of restraint, sedation with medications, such as bromides and chloral hydrate,7or experimental treatment with opium, camphor, and cathartics.9These treatments were neither effective in curing patients nor did they affect a level of improvement that could render patients able to survive outside the facilities. Populations in America's asylums swelled to more than 500,000 during the 1950s,4with an all time high of 559,000 United States psychiatric inpatients in 1953.9During the era of institutionalization, the societal view in America was that persons with mental illness lacked the capacity to make decisions. There was no distinction between voluntary and involuntary admissions to psychiatric hospitals; all admissions were involuntary. Furthermore, because many institutions operated on private funding, it was quite possible for families to purchase the confinement of unwanted relatives.8When patients were eventually released from asylums, they often found that they had lost many of their civil rights (e.g., their property and custody rights).4The case of Mrs. Elizabeth Packard illustrates how problematic the civil commitment standards of the time were. Mrs. Packard was committed to a Jacksonville, Illinois, asylum in 1860 at the behest of her husband who was a clergyman.10Mr. Packard initiated the hospitalization of his wife to punish her for having an unclean spirit,10a decision that he based on her exploration of spiritual traditions outside the Presbyterian faith.4Mrs. Packard was diagnosed with “moral insanity” and held involuntarily in the hospital for three years before ultimately being declared sane. Once released, Mrs. Packard learned that she had lost custody of her children and ownership of her property. She filed a lawsuit for wrongful confinement and won. She then devoted her life to promoting change in civil commitment laws.4It was the legal standards for civil commitment in 1860 that allowed Mrs. Packard to be hospitalized. The standards of the day required only that the presence of mental illness and a recommendation for treatment be established to prove that admission of a person to a psychiatric hospital against his or her will was necessary.8–13The assumption prevailed that inpatient care was of benefit to patients with mental illness.8The admissions process was easy;4there were no established procedural barriers to stand between a prospective psychiatric inpatient and the doorway of the asylum. Patients were presumed incapable of making decisions, and commitment was based on a need for treatment.8State commitment standards during this time were based on the doctrine of parens patriae—the government's obligation to provide for the incapacitated.4For these reasons, coercing patients to comply with prescribed therapies was considered to be acceptable.In response to abuses of civil commitment, such as the injustice that Mrs. Packard suffered, 20th century America saw a shift in the standards for involuntary hospitalization. States changed civil commitment laws to put legal protections in place to protect the right to liberty of the person being considered for commitment. These legal protections included the potential inpatient's right to a trial, with attorney representation, prior to psychiatric admission.8Stricter commitment standards were imposed,8,13and the decision-making power was taken from the hands of medical professionals and placed in the hands of judges and magistrates.13While these changes were made to better protect the rights of people with mental illnesses, there were problems. Many times, individuals served short terms of imprisonment while awaiting the completion of the required procedural standards. For example, a person may have waited in jail for days because an attorney was not immediately available to represent them in a precommitment trial, and he or she may have waited even longer for the precommitment trial to occur. Psychiatrists and mental health advocates protested the standards, which they saw as extreme and harmful to patients. In 1951, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) published the “Draft Act Governing Hospitalization of the Mentally Ill.” The Act functioned to restore psychiatrists' decision-making power on the issue of civil commitment to its prior state, unburdened by lengthy legal procedures.8Go to:DeinstitutionalizationAnother important event occurred in 1950. During the same time that the NIMH was successful in advocating for a public view of commitment as a necessary step to treatment, new medications were invented that challenged the assumption that institutionalization was necessary for the care of patients with mental illness. In this year, novel medications called antipsychotics arrived on the market.4,8,11Chlorpromazine was invented and sold under the trade name Thorazine. The medication was so effective in treating psychosis that the idea of community-based outpatient treatment of individuals who were previously considered to be lifelong hospital cases seemed plausible.9By 1960, state hospitals were being widely criticized. They were portrayed as places where “little effective treatment” was administered. They were described as run-down archaic establishments that simply housed the mentally ill.8The United States government created Medicare and Medicaid in that year, and as a result society assumed a shared responsibility to pay for the care of people suffering from mental disorders.11Americans started to believe that the cost of caring for the mentally ill in institutions was not worth the limited benefit that could be seen as a result of institutionalization.8Additionally, the civil rights movement, which was gaining momentum in the United States at that time, lent to the public push for the abandonment of mental institutions in favor of more humane psychiatric care.4American President John F. Kennedy signed the Community Mental Health Centers Act in 1963 as a means of facilitating the transitioning of patients from inpatient psychiatric hospitals out into communities.11As a result of all of these factors, deinstitutionalization began. Huge numbers of state hospitals were closed all across the United States.7–12The number of psychiatric inpatients declined precipitously from a high of more than 550,000 in 1950 to 30,000 by the 1990s.4Go to:Shift to Dangerousness Criteria as the Standard for Civil CommitmentAlong with the civil rights movement and deinstitutionalization came a shift in the legal standard for civil commitment away from a need-for-treatment model to a dangerousness model. In 1964, Washington, DC, instituted a standard for civil commitment that established that a person must be determined to have a mental illness before he or she could be hospitalized against his or her will. Second, the person had to pose an imminent threat to the safety of him- or herself or others or be shown to be “gravely disabled,” meaning that he or she could not provide for the necessities for basic survival.8The district did not define the terms of the statute concretely, leaving some room for interpretation. However, it is commonly interpreted that dangerousness refers to physical harm to self (suicide) or physical harm to others (homicide), and that the requirement for imminence means that the threat must be likely to occur in the close future.13California adopted a similar statute five years later.8One by one, other states followed suit until the prevailing standard for civil commitment in the United States required the presence of dangerousness as a result of mental disease.8,13,16,17Currently, there are only a few states that do not follow the trend. Delaware requires only proof that a person is not able to make “responsible choices” about hospitalization or treatment for that person to be committed. Iowa's statute mandates only proof that a person is likely to cause “severe emotional injury” to people who are unable to avoid contact with him (e.g., family members).17Each state's civil commitment criteria also still reflect standards set forth in an important Supreme Court case—O'Connor v. Donaldson—in 1975.13This case involved a man named Kenneth Donaldson who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and was held in a psychiatric hospital against his will for 15 years. When his release was repeatedly denied by the psychiatrist in charge of his care, despite the fact that he had not shown any evidence of suicidality or intentions to harm others, Mr. Donaldson argued to the court for restoration of his freedom. The case was eventually heard by the Supreme Court, who determined that Mr. Donaldson should be released. The Supreme Court laid out acceptable criteria for holding patients against their will. Justices stated that a mentally ill individual must either present a known risk of harm to him- or herself or others, be in such a state that he or she would be “hopeless to avoid the hazards of freedom,”13or in need of psychiatric treatment. The court seemed to embrace the dangerousness model for civil commitment; however, they did also find that individuals with mental disorders could not be kept in institutions “without more.”8,13,18The word “more” is generally believed to refer to treatment.4In addition to the redefinition of criteria for involuntary hospitalization, there was also a shift in procedural standards for civil commitment that granted potential psychiatric inpatients greater procedural safeguards.4,8,13–15States continued to allow patients to be admitted directly to hospitals against their wishes; however, they determined that this could only be done for a short, pre-determined period of time that varied by state from two days to approximately two weeks. After that time, patients were entitled to a hearing before the court to determine whether their involuntary commitment should continue.4Patients were also guaranteed that they would have legal representation at their commitment hearings.Another aspect of civil commitment proceedings that was defined at this time was the issue of burden of proof, or the degree to which the evidence presented convinces the trier of fact that his decision is correct. There are three standards of proof that can apply when decisions are made in court. The highest standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This standard requires that the trier of fact be convinced of his decision without any reservations that would be expected of a reasonable person. It applies in criminal cases. The lowest standard of proof is by a “preponderance of the evidence,” and it requires only that the trier of fact be certain that her decision is more likely to be correct than incorrect. It applies in civil suits. The third standard of proof allows decisions to be made based on “clear and convincing evidence,” which is defined as being greater than a preponderance of evidence, but less than beyond a reasonable doubt. An important Supreme Court case in 1978, Addington v. Texas, considered the following question: “Which standard of proof does the person requesting involuntary hospitalization of a psychiatric patient have to meet to satisfy the court that the patient meets criteria for commitment?”4,8,13,19Frank Addington was a man with a long history of psychotic illness who had been hospitalized numerous times in the past.13His mother filed a case requesting that he be committed indefinitely because he assaulted her in the past. Her request was granted and Mr. Addington appealed this decision because the court committed him based on a standard of clear and convincing evidence, the mid-level standard of proof. He argued that the evidence against him should have been required to reach the highest standard of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt.8,13The Supreme Court disagreed with Mr. Addington and supported the ruling of the lower court.19The justices opined that because psychiatry was a field dealing with the inexact science of predicting future risk, the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt was so burdensome that it would serve as a barrier to the hospitalization of many patients who were in clear need of care.13In 1966, another important legal case occurred that underscored dangerousness as the key criteria for involuntary hospitalization of psychiatric patients by establishing a right to less confining treatment for nondangerous patients. This was the case of Lake v. Cameron, which was presented before a Washington, DC, appeals court in 1966.4Catherine Lake was a woman with mental illness who had been hospitalized against her will and kept involuntarily at St. Elizabeth's psychiatric hospital for many years, despite not showing any evidence of dangerousness to herself or anyone else. She desired freedom and petitioned the district for her release.4,17,20The court determined that all patients who were not dangerous “should not be confined if a less restrictive alternative is available.”20To this day, because of this ruling, psychiatrists who complete emergency evaluations are required by law to recommend the least restrictive level of treatment that will meet the needs of nondangerous psychiatric patients.16Go to:Unintended Consequences of Basing Civil Commitment on Dangerousness Rather than A Need for TreatmentAlthough the shift toward strict dangerousness criteria for civil commitment was based on the honorable intentions of protecting the rights of individuals with mental illnesses and ensuring that they received effective treatment delivered in the least socially disruptive settings, serious unintended negative consequences have occurred. Because an inpatient stay is often the first step in treatment for people with mental illness, one consequence of the shift toward dangerousness criteria has been compromised access to psychiatric care for nondangerous individuals with mental illness who need but are refusing treatment. Under treatment-driven criteria for commitment, these persons would have gained access to the system through hospitalization on an involuntary basis if necessary. However, under standards based on dangerousness, the medical system will not intervene against a person's wishes until he or she becomes suicidal, physically violent, or grossly unable to perform activities of daily living. Through interviews of mothers of individuals with mental illness, Copeland learned that current civil commitment criteria force relatives to watch their loved ones go through progressive stages of psychiatric decompensation before they can get them any help at all.21Furthermore, since the tightening of criteria for involuntary psychiatric hospitalization, the United States has seen a trend of persons with mental illness being marginalized to unsafe and inappropriate settings. Since deinstitutionalization, there has been a tremendous increase in America's population of people with mental illness who are living on the streets.8,22,23The latest estimates by the United States' Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reveal that up to 25 percent of our country's homeless population is made up of individuals with mental disorders, despite the fact that only approximately six percent of the general population suffers from mental illness.23Individuals with mental illness are not only overrepresented in our nation's homeless population, but they are overrepresented among the United States' correctional population as well. Since the 1970s, coincident with deinstitutionalization and reform of civil commitment standards toward dangerousness criteria, the trend of “criminalization of the mentally ill” has occurred.24It is currently estimated that, among our country's prison inmates, there is a 10- to 25-percent prevalence of mental illness.22,24Many of these mentally ill inmates are nonviolent offenders,8a fair number of whom were convicted of survival crimes (e.g., theft of food or trespassing for shelter) related to limitations in social functioning and ability to meet basic needs because of chronic mental illness.25It has been shown that people with mental illness are arrested more often than people without mental illness that encounter law enforcement under similar circumstances. Additionally, persons who have been civilly committed in the past have a higher likelihood of arrest than persons with histories of voluntary psychiatric hospital stays. One reason that police cite as a motivating factor for taking people with mental disorders into criminal custody rather than to hospital emergency rooms is that the justice system is a more likely route through which long-term care can be achieved. It is unfortunate, but this is a direct result of the decreased average length of involuntary hospitalization that has occurred because of the shift to dangerousness criteria for civil commitment. Involuntary hospitalization has become a quick and limited fix for acute and severe mental pathology rather than a step toward long-term psychiatric care.25Go to:Special PopulationsThere are several special populations of people with mental illness that fall at the intersection between psychiatry and law. These individuals present unique challenges to psychiatry and are often subject to civil commitment.The first such population consists of persons with mental illness who have histories of breaking laws during episodes of mental illness and are found by the court to be not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). The American public may view the insanity defense critically due to a widespread belief that it provides an easy route for criminals to avoid social punishment.26In reality, insanity acquittees are not quickly released to society. Although these persons are technically acquitted by the justice system, they are almost always subsequently remanded to the medical system with the expectation that they will receive psychiatric care. This expectation is met through civil commitment, and insanity acquittees remain hospitalized until they can prove that they have been sufficiently psychiatrically rehabilitated to no longer pose a risk to society.27The process of release from commitment for persons found NGRI can be very lengthy and complicated, and the time acquittees spend in psychiatric facilities may exceed the term of the jail sentence that they would have served if found guilty of the crime that they committed.26,27In fact, the issue of length of commitment after a court finding of NGRI went before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1983. In the case of Jones v. United States, a man who had been arrested for the misdemeanor-level crime of attempted petty larceny entered an insanity plea. He was found NGRI by the court and subsequently civilly committed. After he had been hospitalized for more than 12 months, the maximum possible term of incarceration for misdemeanor offenses, he went back to the court asking to be released. He presented the argument that he should not be involuntarily hospitalized for a longer period than he would have spent in jail. The court rejected Mr. Jones's argument.4,28The justices ruled that, because a finding of NGRI was technically an acquittal, the length of the “hypothetical criminal sentence” was irrelevant to the determination of the length of involuntary hospitalization.28The Supreme Court set a standard with this ruling that persons committed after findings of NGRI could be hospitalized against their will for an indefinite period of time, regardless of the maximum length of time that could be served if they were convicted.4,28,29A second group that presents a challenge at the interface of psychiatry and law is sex offenders. There is a deeply ingrained and intense fear of victimization by sexual predators among the American public. This has led to an extraordinary number of socially and legally sanctioned means of social control of persons with histories of committing sexual crimes. As a society, we label these individuals “sex offenders” and control them with a variety of measures, including mandated public registry participation, restriction of housing and employment opportunities, and civil commitment. Sexually violent predator (SVP) commitment laws exist in the legal statutes of 20 states as well as in federal law.30These laws allow civil commitment of individuals who have been convicted of sexually violent crimes provided that they have been diagnosed with a mental illness and are judged to present a risk to the general public because of their diagnoses.31Several cases that challenged SVP commitment laws were judicated by the United States Supreme Court. The issue of whether post-release civil commitment of sex offenders who have completed prison sentences violated the protection from double jeopardy guaranteed by the Constitution was considered by the Supreme Court in the 1997 case Kansas v. Hendricks. This case involved Mr. Hendricks, a man with pedophilia and a history of child molestation who had been civilly committed in Kansas after serving a jail sentence for his crimes. He requested his release based on his belief that he was then being punished twice for one crime.32The Court determined that civil commitment by definition was a psychiatric intervention rather than a punishment, and therefore, states had the right to involuntarily hospitalize even those individuals who had already served time for crimes arising from sexual disorders. Additionally, the Court determined that if sexual conditions leading to commitment were untreatable, commitment could last indefinitely.4,30,31Five years later, in 2002, another case challenging Kansas's practices of civil commitment of sex offenders was brought to the Supreme Court. The case of Kansas v. Crane again upheld the constitutionality of the commitment of individuals who had committed violent sex crimes.30The justices deciding this case also ruled that an evaluator's judgment that a person has an impaired ability to control his behavior stemming from a “mental abnormality or personality disorder” could suffice for establishing the presence of mental disorder required for civil commitment.30,33SVP commitment laws are very controversial and have strong opponents. The American Psychiatric Association formally opposed SVP commitment laws,30and a large number of psychiatrists over the years have expressed professional concerns that these laws mandate physicians to serve the inappropriate, nonclinical function of incarcerating persons with criminal pasts in facilities that were established for treatment of psychiatric disorders.4Additionally, many individuals classified as sex offenders, (e.g., those who have committed rape) do not clearly meet criteria for any Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders diagnosis. A common diagnosis among committed sex offenders (second only to pedophilia) is paraphilia, not otherwise specified. Critics of civil commitment of sex offenders argue that providers are using catch-all diagnoses to justify the continued deprivation of liberty, and that the end of public safety does not justify the unethical means used to achieve it.30On the other hand, SVP commitment laws also have strong supporters. Those in favor of the laws believe that disorders of aberrant sexual behavior are largely untreatable and that individuals suffering from them pose a great risk to innocent citizens.4,31Individuals who support civil commitment of sex offenders point out that, even with the best hormonal and behavioral treatments, there is still some degree of recidivism. Grossman et al34published a review of current literature on outcomes after treatment of sex offenders, through which the authors found that existing hormonal and behavioral treatments for sex offenders were effective in decreasing recidivism by 30 percent over a seven-year follow-up period. Given this data, supporters of SVP commitment laws serve an important function in protecting society from individuals who may still be dangerous.With regard to a personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, which predisposes individuals to dangerousness, there is controversy regarding the issue of civil commitment. Psychiatrists disagree about whether this diagnosis alone should be grounds for commitment, and there have been conflicting legal decisions on the matter. The Supreme Court ruled through Kansas v. Hendricks that a personality disorder could be grounds for keeping a sexual predator civilly committed.31,36However, in the case Foucha v. Louisiana a different ruling was made. In this case, Terry Foucha committed the offenses of aggravated burglary and illegal discharge of a firearm while under the influence of psychosis, which was later determined to have been drug-induced. When he was no longer psychotic, he petitioned for his release on the basis that he was not mentally ill. Psychiatrists evaluated Mr. Foucha and opined that he had antisocial personality disorder and that he would likely present a danger to others if discharged.35The case went to the United States Supreme Court, which determined that antisocial personality disorder did not qualify as a diagnosis of mental illness because of which a person could be involuntarily hospitalized, and that Foucha should be discharged.35,36Individuals with eating disorders are another population that presents special challenges to psychiatrists, especially when the issue of involuntary hospitalization arises. Eating disorders carry high mortality rates. A 1995 study reported that the mortality rate for patients with anorexia was nearly six percent per decade.38A subsequent meta-analysis published in 2009 reported that eating disorders had crude mortality rates between 3.9 and 5.2 percent.38Death occurs not only from medical complications of chronic starvation and purging behaviors (self-induced vomiting and laxative abuse), but also from suicide.37–39Patients with eating disorders also show a large degree of reluctance toward and refusal of treatment.40Despite the potential lethality of the disorders, the fact that an inpatient setting is often the most appropriate setting for weight restoration and intense psychiatric treatment, and the commonality of treatment refusal among those with the disorders, commitment of individuals with eating disorders is uncommon. It is notable that within the extensive literature on eating disorders, there is scant mention of the role of civil commitment in their treatment, and that the Practice Guidelines on Eating Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association gives no concrete guidelines on commitment of patients with eating disorders.41There are many reasons why civil commitment of patients with eating disorders is a challenge for United States psychiatrists. A primary reason is that many psychiatric providers are not certain about whether an eating disorder qualifies as a “severe mental disease or defect.”41There is a common impression throughout the United States that eating disorders are not serious mental disorders.39Furthermore, patients with eating disorders can often hide the extent to which their thought processes and judgment are impaired by perceptual disturbances regarding body image and weight. The typical patient with anorexia, for example, is not the picture of an obviously certifiable patient, but that of a well-spoken, seemingly put together young woman.40Providers may find it difficult to assert that patients with eating disorders pose an imminent risk of harm to themselves. Chronic starvation is not typically considered to be a suicidal behavior, and even providers who see this behavior as suicidal do not necessarily see it as imminently life threatening. Although many states have statutes that allow for commitment of patients whose behavior renders them gravely disabled, the behavior has to be so disabling as to create an imminent risk of harm to the patient. Currently, even among mental health providers who specialize in eating disorders, there is no clear consensus about what clinical signs indicate that this imminent risk exists.41Patients who abuse substances are another special population in our discussion of civil commitment practices in the United States. Individuals with substance use disorders have illnesses that pose a high mortality risk to them. Substance abusers have a high degree of treatment reluctance and often refuse residential treatment even when critically necessary for their survival. Furthermore, patients with substance dependencies do not demonstrate clear evidence of thought disorder. Just as these factors contribute to a relatively low rate of civil commitment of patients with eating disorders, they contribute to a relatively low rate of civil commitment for patients with addictions. As of the year 2001, 11 of the 50 states had commitment statutes that allowed for involuntary hospitalization of individuals based solely on the presence of drug dependence (without even the presence of dangerousness), and in eight states commitment of individuals based solely on the presence of alcohol dependence was allowed.42Researchers found, however, that in states where these statutes existed only 20 percent of psychiatrists believed that substance dependence as a diagnosis fulfilled criteria for civil commitment.42One area in which compulsory residential treatment of persons with addictions is often employed is in the field of forensic psychiatry. In 1961, California passed legislation allowing for involuntary hospitalization of narcotic-addicted individuals who had been arrested for drug-related crimes. New York passed its own law allowing for civil commitment of persons with opioid dependence in 1962. Subsequently, in 1966, Congress passed the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act (NARA), a federal law that allowed for commitment of persons with addictions to narcotics. Currently, there are many states with systems in place that allow persons convicted of drug offenses to go to treatment as an alternative to going to jail. Research has shown that these individuals, who are coerced into treatment, have just as favorable outcomes as do voluntary patients.43Although NARA does allow for compulsory treatment of drug abusers who have not been convicted or even charged with legal offenses, in practice, most involuntary hospitalization of substance abusers occurs within the forensic psychiatric population. This is an area of controversy. Advocates of drug treatment argue that because involuntary treatment is as effective as voluntary treatment, commitment should be used more often in treating addictions. However, because of limited access to programs and a widely shared belief that resources should be prioritized for people who truly want to be in recovery of their own accord, the practice of committing addicted individuals who have not broken laws is rare.43Go to:Outpatient Civil CommitmentOutpatient civil commitment is a relatively modern trend in the United States. In contrast to inpatient civil commitment, which involves separation of a mentally ill person from society through placement behind a locked door, outpatient civil commitment allows people suffering from mental disorders to remain in their communities. It is an alternative means of mandating the treatment of individuals who could potentially become dangerous to themselves or others without forcing them to be hospitalized.Although by the year 1999, outpatient commitment had been around for decades, the state of New York brought national attention to this issue with the passage of Kendra's Law. The impetus for Kendra's Law was the occurrence of a tragedy in New York City—a man with untreated schizophrenia shoved a young woman into the path of a city subway, causing her untimely death. The law enacted outpatient commitment standards for the state of New York with the hopes of preventing similar tragedies from occurring in the future. The state passed the law to ensure that persons with mental illness who were in need of treatment that would prevent them from becoming dangerous in society got the treatment they needed.4Currently, outpatient commitment statutes exist in most states.8The goal of these statutes is to ensure that psychiatric care is provided to individuals who have a need not only for mental health services but also for supervision.4Outpatient civil commitment depends on several criteria. First, the individual considered for outpatient commitment must be diagnosed with a mental disorder. Second, the individual needs to clearly be in need of treatment and have a history of poor insight regarding his need for care leading to periods of treatment nonadherence. This in turn indicates that he would not be likely to reliably access psychiatric care on a voluntary basis. Third, there must be evidence indicating that the individual is likely to decompensate into a state that would prove dangerous to him or herself or others if treatment nonadherence were to occur.8If the criteria are met, the individual can be mandated to outpatient psychiatric treatment, however, not necessarily forced to take prescribed medications.4,8The benefit of outpatient commitment comes with the monitoring of committed individuals and the requirement of adherence with outpatient mental health visits. Persons who are civilly committed to the outpatient mental health system are easier to involuntarily hospitalize at earlier stages of psychiatric deterioration because they are carefully managed by the community mental health system. Families also often find it easier to access needed care for mentally ill relatives who are subject to outpatient commitment.21Outpatient commitment results in fewer arrests of people with mental illness.25Additionally, outpatient commitment has been shown to be effective in improving patients' psychiatric outcomes,44decreasing rates of hospitalization and lengths of inpatient psychiatric stays,44,45as well as increasing participation in community psychiatric treatment.44,45Go to:ConclusionLiving with a mental illness can be a difficult experience because of the effects that the disorders can have on the perception of reality and the distortion of an individual's judgment. These alterations may place the patient and others in danger. The practice of civil commitment—involuntary hospitalization of a patient—predates the profession of psychiatry itself, however remains a controversial part of psychiatric practice.Often involuntary hospitalization is the first step in establishing psychiatric treatment for individuals who are desperately in need of mental health services, and the original commitment standards in the United States reflected the recognition of a right to treatment for individuals with mental disorders. However, abuse of treatment-based standards led, in some cases, to institutionalization of individuals without mental disease whose hospitalization could benefit unprincipled spouses or relatives. The United States movement of deinstitutionalization during the civil rights era, with concurrent shift in commitment standards to standards based on dangerousness, was meant to protect psychiatric patients from unjust violations of autonomy. This shift created different problems, including a shift of people with mental illness from asylums to prisons, and creation of an epidemic of homelessness among persons with mental disorders. Today, we still face the challenge of striking a balance between assuring that patients have access to psychiatric care, through involuntary hospitalization if necessary, without allowing the practice of psychiatry to be used as a force for social control.The United States Supreme Court has addressed the issue of civil commitment in numerous landmark cases. In deciding O'Connor v. Donaldson, Addington v. Texas, and Lake v. Cameron, the Court established the criteria for and burden of proof needed to justify civil commitment, and established a right to treatment in the least restrictive environment for patients facing hospitalization against their will. The Court has also answered questions about the purpose of involuntary hospitalization, not only for typical psychiatric patients, but for special populations such as sex offenders (Kansas v. Hendricks) and NGRI acquitters (Jones v. United States) as well. Despite the progress the Supreme Court has made in resolving the controversies surrounding civil commitment, many controversies remain. Areas in which consensus is needed regarding civil commitability include personality disorders, eating disorders, and substance use disorders.

This one is easy. I will provide for you the following comprehensive list.Impeachable offenses that Donald Trump has committed while in office.Violation of Constitution on Domestic EmolumentsViolation of Constitution on Foreign EmolumentsIncitement of ViolenceInterference With Voting RightsDiscrimination Based On ReligionIllegal WarIllegal Threat of Nuclear WarAbuse of Pardon PowerObstruction of JusticePoliticizing ProsecutionsCollusion Against the United States with a Foreign GovernmentFailure to Reasonably Prepare for or Respond to Hurricanes Harvey and MariaSeparating Children and Infants from FamiliesIllegally Attempting to Influence an ElectionTax Fraud and Public MisrepresentationAssaulting Freedom of the PressSupporting a Coup in VenezuelaUnconstitutional Declaration of EmergencyInstructing Border Patrol to Violate the LawRefusal to Comply With SubpoenasDeclaration of Emergency Without Basis In Order to Violate the Will of CongressIllegal Proliferation of Nuclear TechnologyIllegally Removing the United States from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces TreatySeeking to Use Foreign Governments' Resources Against Political RivalsRefusal to Comply with Impeachment InquiryViolation of Constitution on Domestic Emoluments“In his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has illegally received emoluments from the United States government and from individual state governments.The Constitutional ban on domestic emoluments (Article II, Section 1) is absolute, not waivable by Congress, and not subject to proving any particular corrupting influence.President Trump’s lease of the Old Post Office Building in Washington D.C. violates the General Services Administration lease contract which states: “No … elected official of the Government of the United States … shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom.” The GSA’s failure to enforce that contract constitutes an emolument. A January 16, 2019, report by the Inspector General of the General Services Administration confirmed this.Since 1980 Trump and his businesses have garnered, according to the New York Times, “$885 million in tax breaks, grants and other subsidies for luxury apartments, hotels and office buildings in New York.” Those subsidies from the state of New York have continued since President Trump took office and constitute emoluments. The Trump organization receives emoluments from other states as well.In these and many similar actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Violation of Constitution on Foreign EmolumentsIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has illegally received emoluments from foreign governments. Foreign emoluments are banned by the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9).Donald J. Trump’s business has licensing deals with two Trump Towers in Istanbul, Turkey. Donald J. Trump has stated: “I have a little conflict of interest, because I have a major, major building in Istanbul.”China’s state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China is the largest tenant in Trump Tower in New York City. It is also a major lender to the Trump organization. Its rent payments and its loans put President Trump in violation of the U.S. Constitution.Foreign diplomats, including the Embassy of Kuwait, have changed their Washington D.C. hotel and event reservations to Trump International Hotel following Donald J. Trump’s election to public office.In these and many similar actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. (back to top)Incitement of ViolenceIn his conduct while President of the United States, and while campaigning for election to that office, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has illegally incited violence within the United States.A partial sampling of public statements by candidate Donald J. Trump:“If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”“You know what I hate? There’s a guy, totally disruptive, throwing punches, we’re not allowed to punch back anymore. I love the old days—you know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.”“See the first group, I was nice. Oh, take your time. The second group, I was pretty nice. The third group, I’ll be a little more violent. And the fourth group, I’ll say get the hell out of here!”“I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell ya.”“He was swinging, he was hitting people, and the audience hit back. That’s what we need more of.”Numerous incidents of violence followed these and other similar comments. John Franklin McGraw punched a man in the face at a Trump event, and then told Inside Edition that “The next time we see him, we might have to kill him.” Donald J. Trump said that he was considering paying McGraw’s legal bills.Since Trump’s election and inauguration, his comments appearing to incite violence have continued, as have incidents of violence in which those participating in violence have pointed to Trump as justification.On July 2, 2017, President Donald J. Trump tweeted a video of himself body slamming a man with an image of “CNN” superimposed on him.In August 2017, participants in a racist rally in Charlottesville, Va., credited President Trump with boosting their cause. Their violence included actions that led to a murder charge. President Trump publicly minimized the offense and sought to blame “many sides.”In April 2019, weeks after one of his supporters was arrested by the FBI for threatening to shoot Congresswoman Ilhan Omar in the head, President Trump tweeted a misleading and inflammatory video promoting just the sort of hatred toward Omar that the man arrested had expressed.In these and similar actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Interference With Voting RightsIn his conduct while President of the United States, and while campaigning for election to that office, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has engaged in acts of voter intimidation and suppression.For months leading up to the November 2016 elections, Donald J. Trump publicly encouraged his supporters, the same ones he had encouraged to engage in violence, to patrol polling places in search of participants in the virtually nonexistent practice of voter fraud. In so doing, candidate Trump made would-be voters aware that they might face such patrols. His remarks included:“I hope you people can sort of not just vote on the 8th, go around and look and watch other polling places, and make sure that it’s 100 percent fine.”“We’re going to watch Pennsylvania. Go down to certain areas and watch and study and make sure other people don’t come in and vote five times.”Trump urged supporters to target Philadelphia, St. Louis, and other cities with large minority populations.He created on his campaign website a way to sign up to “volunteer to be a Trump election observer.”When early voting began, incidents were reported of Trump supporters photographing voters and otherwise intimidating them.Trump ally and advisor Roger Stone formed an activist group called Stop the Steal that acted in line with Trump’s public statements. The group appeared to threaten violence against delegates if the Republican Party denied Trump its nomination. It then organized intimidation efforts in the general election around the unsupported claim that Trump’s opponents would somehow “flood the polls with illegals. Liberal enclaves already let illegals vote in their local and state elections and now they want them to vote in the Presidential election.”According to the U.S. Department of Justice in 2006, in all federal elections from 2002 to 2005, a total of 26 people out of 197 million were convicted of trying to vote illegally.Stone’s organization created official-looking ID badges for volunteers and asked them to videotape voters, and conduct phony exit polls in nine cities with large minority populations.One such volunteer, Steve Webb of Ohio, told the Boston Globe, “I’m going to go right up behind them. I’ll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I’m not going to do anything illegal. I’m going to make them a little bit nervous.”Since becoming president, Donald J. Trump has continued with voter intimidation efforts. He has created a Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, which has sent letters to states requesting sensitive voter information. Most states have refused. But thousands of people have canceled their registrations rather than have their information turned over to Trump’s administration.In these and similar actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office. (back to top)Discrimination Based On ReligionIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has engaged in acts of discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and other laws by seeking to ban Muslims from entering the United States.Donald J. Trump had openly campaigned for office promising a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Once in office, he created an executive order that his advisor Rudy Giuliani, said on Fox News had been drafted after Trump had asked him for the best way to create a Muslim ban “legally.” The order targeted several majority-Muslim countries for restrictions on immigration to the United States, but made allowances for people of minority religions within those countries. Trump told the Christian Broadcasting Network that Christian refugees would be given priority. When a federal court stopped this order from taking effect, President Trump issued a new one containing, in the words of his advisor Stephen Miller “minor technical differences.”In these actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Illegal WarIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has waged numerous wars in violation of the United Nations Charter and of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, both treaties part of the Supreme Law of the United States under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.President Trump and his subordinates attempted to mislead the U.S. public and Congress about justifications for wars, including by claiming to have knowledge that the Syrian government used chemical weapons, as well as by falsely stating the number of U.S. troops deployed to various wars.President Trump has escalated bombing campaigns in Iraq and Syria, resulting in large numbers of civilian deaths. After campaigning for office in opposition to the war on Afghanistan, Trump has effectively made it a permanent operation. President Trump spoke at the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency on January 23, 2017, and promoted an illegal policy of waging wars for the theft of resources. Trump has overseen the U.S. military's collaboration in the illegal bombing of Yemen by Saudi Arabia, in violation of the Leahy Law and resulting in a severe humanitarian crisis.By these actions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and the world. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Illegal Threat of Nuclear WarIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has flagrantly threatened nuclear war ("fire and fury") against North Korea, in violation of the United Nations Charter, a treaty that is part of the Supreme Law of the United States under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.Trump later threatened Iran with "CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE," also declaring "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran."By these and similar actions,President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and the world. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Abuse of Pardon PowerIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has issued a pardon for former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Joe Arpaio, who had been convicted of contempt for failure to comply with a court order in a case charging him with racial discrimination.Arpaio was open about his commission of the underlying crime, for which he was found liable in a civil suit. His contempt conviction was for continuing to engage in racial profiling, violating an order to cease doing so.Arpaio set up a prison that he called a concentration camp. It had a high death rate with deaths often unexplained. He enclosed Latino prisoners with electric fencing.According to Washington Postreporting, Trump has directed his subordinates to illegally seize private land and violate environmental regulations in order to build a wall on the Mexican border, and has promised to pardon all the crimes involved.By this action, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and the world. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Obstruction of JusticeIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," has obstructed justice.The day after President Trump was briefed by White House Counsel on dishonest statements by then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn who was being investigated by the FBI, Trump met with the director of the FBI James Comey and demanded his personal loyalty. Two weeks later Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation. Later still, Trump fired Comey. By Trump's own words (Watch Lester Holt's Extended Interview With President Trump), his motivation was at least partly to obstruct the investigation.By this action, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and the world. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Politicizing ProsecutionsIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," has directed or endeavored to direct law enforcement, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to investigate and prosecute political adversaries and others -- and to not prosecute political allies -- for improper purposes not justified by any lawful function of his office, thereby eroding the rule of law, undermining the independence of law enforcement from politics, and compromising the constitutional right to due process of law.On the Friday before Election Day 2017, the president issued a remarkable series of public statements, including on Twitter, pressuring the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party, and other political adversaries.Earlier, the president had called Army soldier Bowe Bergdahl a "dirty, rotten traitor" while court-martial charges were pending.On September 3, 2018, President Donald J. Trump tweeted this: "Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff…” This cannot be read but as potentially influencing the current or a future Attorney General or others in law enforcement to politicize prosecutions.In 1940, Attorney General (later Supreme Court Justice) Robert Jackson warned that "the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power" was "picking the man and then . . . putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him." A chief executive who uses law enforcement to persecute political enemies is characteristic of a banana republic, not a constitutional republic. That is why Republican and Democratic presidents alike have respected the independence of law enforcement. In the case of military courts-martial, such as Bergdahl's, this limit is formalized in the prohibition of "command influence."Congress set a precedent with the second article of impeachment against President Richard Nixon, which cited, in its fifth specification, his use of federal investigative agencies against political opponents. Following this precedent, the president's attempts to employ the criminal investigative powers of the federal government against political opponents "for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office" are grounds for impeachment, even if they did not succeed in influencing law enforcement.By this action, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and the world. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Collusion Against the United States with a Foreign GovernmentIn his conduct while President-Elect of the United States, Donald J. Trump and his transition team lobbied foreign governments, including those of Egypt and Russia on behalf of the government of Israel.Trump advisor Michael Flynn has lied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about talking, pre-inauguration, to Russia (and other countries) on behalf of the government of Israel, allegedly at the instruction of Jared Kushner, who reportedly took his direction from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted Russia to block or delay a UN resolution against illegal Israeli settlements, because then-President of the United States Barack Obama had chosen not to veto it. News reports in December 2016 said that Russia, while it did not veto, did try to delay the vote. Also, in December 2016, the government of Egypt said it had delayed the vote because President-Elect Trump had phoned the president of Egypt on behalf of Israel.In these actions and decisions, Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Failure to Reasonably Prepare for or Respond to Hurricanes Harvey and MariaIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which was established to "provide for the common defense," and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has failed to reasonably prepare for events like Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Maria or to adequately respond to those hurricanes.The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was without a new director until June 2017. The National Hurricane Center was without a head from May 2017 through the time of Hurricane Harvey in August. On August 15, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that rejected the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard, which had been established by executive order in 2015, and which required that infrastructure be built to withstand flooding. He already had disbanded the Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment, and withdrawn the United States from the Paris climate agreement. When Hurricane Harvey hit, President Donald Trump did not engage in rescue and recovery operations on the scale required. His subordinates at FEMA proposed that private individuals fund and perform those tasks on their own.When Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico in September 2017, and for the months that followed, President Trump refused significant aid, despite widespread devastation, lack of electricity, and lack of medical care that, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2018, left over 4,600 people dead. For weeks Trump even blocked aid to Puerto Rico from other nations, refusing to waive the Jones Act as he had done following Hurricane Harvey, even as numerous experts predicted the sort of death and suffering that resulted.By these actions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and the world. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Separating Children and Infants from FamiliesIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," has overseen the work of his subordinates who have forcibly separated thousands of refugee children and infants from their families, imprisoned them in inhumane conditions including on military bases and in the private facilities of military contractors, denied access to these sites sought by members of Congress, failed to meet or even to plausibly attempt to meet a court-imposed deadline to reunite children with their families, and defended these policies with hate-inspiring rhetoric almost certainly resulting in additional violence and cruelty by government employees and private individuals alike (see also Article of Impeachment on "Incitement of Violence").In these actions, Donald J. Trump has abused his high office and violated numerous legal requirements in an explicit effort to punish and deter people who in many cases stand accused of no legal violations themselves, and in other cases are accused of a misdemeanor. These actions by President Trump have violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the United States is party, the Convention on the Rights of the Child to which every other nation on earth is party, the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has maintained that "the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the] Court." President Trump's subsequent Executive Order stating that families would be imprisoned as groups, rather than being separated, would have failed to bring him into compliance with international law or the Constitution even if implemented.On September 6, 2018, the Trump administration announced a new rule that would allow immigrant children with their parents to be imprisoned indefinitely, in violation of a 1997 court settlement agreement that limits the imprisonment of children to 20 days.In these actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and people seeking asylum and refuge in the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Illegally Attempting to Influence an ElectionWhile campaigning for the office of President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, according to the sworn testimony and the guilty plea of his attorney Michael Cohen, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to buy the silence of individuals, and did so with the intent of influencing the election and in violation of campaign finance laws.On August 21, 2018, Cohen admitted in federal court that he had paid Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to silence them before the 2016 election at Donald J. Trump's "direction." Cohen said he acted "in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office" and "for the principal purpose of influencing the election." This testimony implicates Donald J. Trump in the crime of conspiring to make an excessive and illegal campaign contribution. It also implicates him in the high crime and misdemeanor of attempting to fraudulently influence -- and quite possibly successfully influence -- the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. As President, he lied about and tried to cover-up his wrongdoing.In this action, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Tax Fraud and Public MisrepresentationIn his conduct prior to assuming the office of President of the United States, Donald J. Trump engaged in extensive tax fraud which served as the basis for his dramatic misrepresentation to the public of his accomplishments.According to evidence and documentation made public by the New York Times and not countered by President Trump, he and his siblings committed numerous felonies in the course of obtaining wealth from their father while paying approximately 5% rather than the 55% in taxes that the law required.They did this, in part, by undervaluing properties, a crime known as appraisal fraud. Donald Trump and his siblings claimed that properties given them by their father were worth $41.4 million, but sold those properties for over 16 times that amount during the next decade.Another crime employed was transfer pricing. Trump and his siblings massively overcharged their father's companies for largely nonexistent services in order to both obtain his wealth and reduce his profits. The reduction in profits allowed Trump's father to increase the rent he charged people for publicly subsidized, rent-controlled properties.Through these and other fraudulent activities, Donald Trump was made wealthy by the transfer of money from his father. In the analysis of one expert, if Trump had simply invested that money in a simple investment fund, he would now have the $10 billion he falsely claimed to have as a candidate for president. In reality, Trump lost a fortune through business failures. As a candidate, however, by lying about his wealth and the origins of his wealth, Donald Trump misled voters to believe that, while he had no political record he did have a very successful business record. Trump falsely claimed to have received only $1 million from his father which he had been required to pay back "with interest."In these and many similar actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Assaulting Freedom of the PressIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has repeatedly undermined the freedom of the press.President Trump has threatened to use libel law to go after media outlets that have displeased him. On March 30, 2017, he tweeted: “The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?” On April 30, 2017, his then chief of staff Reince Priebus confirmed that changing libel laws is “something we’ve looked at,” adding that “newspapers and news agencies need to be more responsible with how they report the news.” On July 2, 2017, President Donald J. Trump tweeted a video of himself body slamming a man with an image of “CNN” superimposed on him.President Trump has threatened to remove broadcasting licenses from media outlets that have displeased him. On October 11, 2017, he tweeted: ‘‘With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!’’ and ‘‘Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!’’President Trump's White House, on February 24, 2017, barred certain news media — CNN, the New York Times, the L.A. Times, and Politico — from attending a White House press briefing. In June 2017, his administration prohibited video recordings of White House press briefings. In November 2018, his administration suspended the press credential of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta, falsely accusing him of “placing his hands” on a white house intern.President Trump has repeatedly referred to news media as “the enemy of the people,” while expressing his desire that journalistic activity be stifled. For example: On February 17, 2017, Trump tweeted: ‘‘The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!’’. On July 22, 2017, Trump tweeted: “A new INTELLIGENCE LEAK from the Amazon Washington Post,this time against A.G. Jeff Sessions.These illegal leaks, like Comey's, must stop!”President Trump’s rhetoric has encouraged authoritarian foreign governments to attack the very U.S. media that Trump criticizes, endangering not only press freedoms but the lives and safety of American journalists. On May 2, 2017, just ahead of World Press Freedom Day, the Committee to Protect Journalists noted that “President Trump's oft-tweeted ‘fake news’ epithet, for example, had already been adopted by repressive governments such as China, Syria, and Russia. When Trump verbally attacked a correspondent during a February press conference, he was cheered by Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the world's worst jailer of journalists.When Saudi Arabia murdered U.S./Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, President Trump made extensive efforts to deny the evidence and to prevent or minimize the consequences to the Saudi government, even while continuing his usual verbal attacks on U.S. journalists.President Trump's subordinates locked up U.S./Iranian journalist Marzieh Hashemi with no charges or trial as a "material witness."President Trump's Department of Justice has indicted Australian publisher Julian Assange on espionage charges for Wikileaks' acts of journalism and publishing.President Trump appointed William Barr as U.S. Attorney General; Barr stated at his confirmation hearings that he might jail journalists for doing their job if that job "hurt the country."Freedom of the press is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As Justice Black observed in New York Times Co. v. United States, "In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government."A president is certainly free to criticize particular news stories and outlets that he believes are inaccurate — and no above-cited tweet or statement, standing in isolation, would constitute an impeachable offense. However, President Trump's consistent pattern of verbal attacks against journalists and his administration's actions to retaliate against and exclude journalists, combined with threats to take governmental action against news outlets, crosses a line.In the above and many similar actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Supporting a Coup in VenezuelaIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,”And in his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Michael Richard Pence, in violation of his oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, have damaged the rule of law and endangered international security by supporting a coup attempt in Venezuela.On the evening of January 22, 2019, following years of damaging U.S. sanctions against Venezuela, which followed an unsuccessful 2002 U.S.-supported coup attempt, Vice President Pence reportedly called Juan Guaidó and told him that the United States would support him if he were to seize power in Venezuela. The next day, January 23, Guaidó attempted to do so. That same day, President Trump issued a statement recognizing Guaidó as the President of Venezuela, despite the fact that Venezuela had an elected president and that Guaidó had no legitimate claim to the presidency. On January 24, 2019, the Trump-Pence administration attempted unsuccessfully to persuade the Organization of American States to recognize Guaidó as president.In the above and related actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Michael Richard Pence have acted in a manner contrary to their trust as President and Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump and Michael Richard Pence, by such conduct, are guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Unconstitutional Declaration of EmergencyIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has declared a national emergency, in the absence of any actual emergency, for the purpose of spending money on a border wall that had been appropriated for other purposes.In so acting, President Trump has violated Article 1, Section 7 of the United States Constitution: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives . . . ." He has also, in so acting, violated Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . . ." The same action also violates the Federal Anti-Deficiency Statute. By using the United States military to enforce immigration law, President Trump's announced plan would also violate the Posse Comitatus Act.In addition, President Trump has abused his power by publicly promoting this action using a series of falsehoods encouraging fear, bigotry, and hatred. He has falsely suggested that immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than non-immigrants, that illegal border crossings have been increasing in recent years, that terrorist groups have sent operatives to enter the United States through Mexico, and that applying for asylum is a threatening or criminal action.In these and many similar actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Instructing Border Patrol to Violate the LawIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has directed U.S. Border Patrol agents to violate the law.On April 5, 2019, President Trump, while visiting Calexico, California, reportedly told Border Patrol agents to defy U.S. law and refuse to allow migrants into the United States. The President went further, instructing Border Patrol agents to lie to a judge if charged with violating the law. "If judges give you trouble, say, 'Sorry, judge, I can't do it. We don't have the room,'" said the President. Upon the President's departure, Border Patrol officials instructed their agents that, contrary to the President's instructions, they were required to obey the law.President Trump went further still, informing Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan, according to "senior administration officials" who spoke with CNN, that he would "grant McAleenan a pardon if he were sent to jail for having border agents block asylum seekers from entering the U.S. in defiance of US law."Paralleling his lawless efforts to keep refugees and immigrants out of the United States, President Trump continued to promote his policy of separating infants and children from families (see separate Article of Impeachment), and proposed shipping and releasing imprisoned refugees to particular parts of the United States for reasons of electoral politics, not human welfare.In these and many similar actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Refusal to Comply with SubpoenasIn his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce witnesses, papers, and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 22, 2019, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives on April 2, 2019. The subpoenaed witnesses, papers, and things were deemed necessary by the Committees in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge, or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be potential grounds for impeachment of the President, including matters involving security clearances and "Russiagate."In refusing to produce these witnesses, papers, and things Donald J. Trump, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiries, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives. In all of this, Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.Declaration of Emergency Without Basis In Order to Violate the Will of CongressIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has declared a state of emergency in the absence of any actual emergency in order to violate the will of Congress and provide deadly weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in its assault on civilians in Yemen.On May 24, 2019, the Secretary of State announced this policy, justifying it as a means "to deter Iranian aggression." No evidence of Iranian aggression was offered, but President Trump and his subordinates had in the preceding days and weeks been engaged in actions that might provoke Iranian "aggression," including threatening attacks on Iran, moving troops and weapons to the region, declaring part of the Iranian military to be a terrorist organization, producing allegations against Iran widely doubted even by U.S. officials, and -- indeed -- providing weapons to Saudi Arabia.Congress had been blocking the sale of certain weapons to Saudi Arabia, and the clear purpose of declaring a false emergency was to subvert the will of Congress.In these actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Illegal Proliferation of Nuclear TechnologyIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has sought to illegally transfer nuclear technology to the government of Saudi Arabia.As documented in the July 2019 report by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, "Corporate and Foreign Interests Behind White House Push to Transfer U.S. Nuclear Technology to Saudi Arabia," under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, approval of Congress is required to transfer nuclear technology to a foreign country. Congress has not given its approval to such transfers to Saudi Arabia, which has not committed to avoiding activities linked to proliferation, but has, on the contrary, publicly threatened to develop nuclear weapons. President Donald J. Trump has nonetheless made efforts on behalf of those who would profit financially to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.President Donald J. Trump has, moreover, completely refused to cooperate with the Congressional Committee investigation of this matter, and not produced a single document requested.In these actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and the world. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Illegally Removing the United States from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces TreatyIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has illegally removed the United States from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.The INF Treaty was signed by President Reagan on December 8, 1987, and ratified by consent of the U.S. Senate on May 27, 1988, thereby becoming the supreme law of the land under Article VI, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The INF Treaty allows withdrawal only if "extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests."The INF Treaty provides for intrusive on-site inspections, backed up by mutual verification by satellite and other monitoring mechanisms, and a Special Verification Commission to resolve any disputes about whether violations have occurred. Whether or not Russian development and deployment of its new 9M729 missile constitutes a "material breach" of the treaty is a matter to be dealt with by the provisions of the treaty itself and cannot satisfy the legal requirement for withdrawal.By illegally withdrawing from the INF Treaty, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and the world. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Seeking to Use Foreign Governments' Resources Against Political RivalsIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has sought to pressure the government of Ukraine to investigate alleged actions of Democratic party rivals including presidential candidate Joseph Biden.According to the White House summary of a July 25, 2019, phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky, President Trump urged President Zelensky to investigate Joseph Biden as well as other matters related to "Russiagate." As pressure on Zelensky, Trump was withholding funding for weapons that had been appropriated by Congress. Asked about this quid pro quo, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney openly admitted to it.Asked on camera about urging a foreign government to investigate a political rival, President Trump openly urged Ukraine again to investigate Biden and asked China to do so as well.Despite this open embrace of his actions, President Trump publicly suggested that whoever had made the content of his call with President Zelensky known should be killed.In these and similar actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Refusal to Comply with Impeachment InquiryIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has refused to comply with subpoenas issued by Congress as part of an inquiry of impeachment.On July 27, 1974, the House Committee on the Judiciary adopted an article of impeachment against then-President Richard M. Nixon accusing him of failing to comply with Congressional subpoenas. President Donald J. Trump has similarly refused to comply with subpoenas.Counsel to the President Pat A. Cipollone has written a letter stating that President Trump will not comply with subpoenas related to impeachment investigations. The Defense Department, under President Trump, has stated a similar intent to refuse to comply. Congressional attorneys have acknowledged that President Trump is obstructing the impeachment inquiry. Such obstruction is itself an impeachable offense.In these ways, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.”Trump Articles of Impeachment

I’ll tell you this… Impeachment is not supposed to be a political tool. Rather, impeachment is supposed to be a specific, legal, constitutional action taken by the United States Congress, when it finds that the President of the United States has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.Trump Articles of Impeachment(as of 5/28/2019)Violation of Constitution on Domestic EmolumentsViolation of Constitution on Foreign EmolumentsIncitement of ViolenceInterference With Voting RightsDiscrimination Based On ReligionIllegal WarIllegal Threat of Nuclear WarAbuse of Pardon PowerObstruction of JusticePoliticizing ProsecutionsCollusion Against the United States with a Foreign GovernmentFailure to Reasonably Prepare for or Respond to Hurricanes Harvey and MariaSeparating Children and Infants from FamiliesIllegally Attempting to Influence an ElectionTax Fraud and Public MisrepresentationAssaulting Freedom of the PressSupporting a Coup in VenezuelaUnconstitutional Declaration of EmergencyInstructing Border Patrol to Violate the LawRefusal the Comply With SubpoenasDeclaration of Emergency Without Basis In Order to Violate the Will of CongressViolation of Constitution on Domestic EmolumentsIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has illegally received emoluments from the United States government and from individual state governments.The Constitutional ban on domestic emoluments (Article II, Section 1) is absolute, not waivable by Congress, and not subject to proving any particular corrupting influence.President Trump’s lease of the Old Post Office Building in Washington D.C. violates the General Services Administration lease contract which states: “No … elected official of the Government of the United States … shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom.” The GSA’s failure to enforce that contract constitutes an emolument. A January 16, 2019, report by the Inspector General of the General Services Administration confirmed this.Since 1980 Trump and his businesses have garnered, according to the New York Times, “$885 million in tax breaks, grants and other subsidies for luxury apartments, hotels and office buildings in New York.” Those subsidies from the state of New York have continued since President Trump took office and constitute emoluments. The Trump organization receives emoluments from other states as well.In these and many similar actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Violation of Constitution on Foreign EmolumentsIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has illegally received emoluments from foreign governments. Foreign emoluments are banned by the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9).Donald J. Trump’s business has licensing deals with two Trump Towers in Istanbul, Turkey. Donald J. Trump has stated: “I have a little conflict of interest, because I have a major, major building in Istanbul.”China’s state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China is the largest tenant in Trump Tower in New York City. It is also a major lender to the Trump organization. Its rent payments and its loans put President Trump in violation of the U.S. Constitution.Foreign diplomats, including the Embassy of Kuwait, have changed their Washington D.C. hotel and event reservations to Trump International Hotel following Donald J. Trump’s election to public office.In these and many similar actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Incitement of ViolenceIn his conduct while President of the United States, and while campaigning for election to that office, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has illegally incited violence within the United States.A partial sampling of public statements by candidate Donald J. Trump:“If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”“You know what I hate? There’s a guy, totally disruptive, throwing punches, we’re not allowed to punch back anymore. I love the old days—you know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.”“See the first group, I was nice. Oh, take your time. The second group, I was pretty nice. The third group, I’ll be a little more violent. And the fourth group, I’ll say get the hell out of here!”“I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell ya.”“He was swinging, he was hitting people, and the audience hit back. That’s what we need more of.”Numerous incidents of violence followed these and other similar comments. John Franklin McGraw punched a man in the face at a Trump event, and then told Inside Edition that “The next time we see him, we might have to kill him.” Donald J. Trump said that he was considering paying McGraw’s legal bills.Since Trump’s election and inauguration, his comments appearing to incite violence have continued, as have incidents of violence in which those participating in violence have pointed to Trump as justification.On July 2, 2017, President Donald J. Trump tweeted a video of himself body slamming a man with an image of “CNN” superimposed on him.In August 2017, participants in a racist rally in Charlottesville, Va., credited President Trump with boosting their cause. Their violence included actions that led to a murder charge. President Trump publicly minimized the offense and sought to blame “many sides.”In April 2019, weeks after one of his supporters was arrested by the FBI for threatening to shoot Congresswoman Ilhan Omar in the head, President Trump tweeted a misleading and inflammatory video promoting just the sort of hatred toward Omar that the man arrested had expressed.In these and similar actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Interference With Voting RightsIn his conduct while President of the United States, and while campaigning for election to that office, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has engaged in acts of voter intimidation and suppression.For months leading up to the November 2016 elections, Donald J. Trump publicly encouraged his supporters, the same ones he had encouraged to engage in violence, to patrol polling places in search of participants in the virtually nonexistent practice of voter fraud. In so doing, candidate Trump made would-be voters aware that they might face such patrols. His remarks included:“I hope you people can sort of not just vote on the 8th, go around and look and watch other polling places, and make sure that it’s 100 percent fine.”“We’re going to watch Pennsylvania. Go down to certain areas and watch and study and make sure other people don’t come in and vote five times.”Trump urged supporters to target Philadelphia, St. Louis, and other cities with large minority populations.He created on his campaign website a way to sign up to “volunteer to be a Trump election observer.”When early voting began, incidents were reported of Trump supporters photographing voters and otherwise intimidating them.Trump ally and advisor Roger Stone formed an activist group called Stop the Steal that acted in line with Trump’s public statements. The group appeared to threaten violence against delegates if the Republican Party denied Trump its nomination. It then organized intimidation efforts in the general election around the unsupported claim that Trump’s opponents would somehow “flood the polls with illegals. Liberal enclaves already let illegals vote in their local and state elections and now they want them to vote in the Presidential election.”According to the U.S. Department of Justice in 2006, in all federal elections from 2002 to 2005, a total of 26 people out of 197 million were convicted of trying to vote illegally.Stone’s organization created official-looking ID badges for volunteers and asked them to videotape voters, and conduct phony exit polls in nine cities with large minority populations.One such volunteer, Steve Webb of Ohio, told the Boston Globe, “I’m going to go right up behind them. I’ll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I’m not going to do anything illegal. I’m going to make them a little bit nervous.”Since becoming president, Donald J. Trump has continued with voter intimidation efforts. He has created a Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, which has sent letters to states requesting sensitive voter information. Most states have refused. But thousands of people have canceled their registrations rather than have their information turned over to Trump’s administration.In these and similar actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Discrimination Based On ReligionIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has engaged in acts of discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and other laws by seeking to ban Muslims from entering the United States.Donald J. Trump had openly campaigned for office promising a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Once in office, he created an executive order that his advisor Rudy Giuliani, said on Fox News had been drafted after Trump had asked him for the best way to create a Muslim ban “legally.” The order targeted several majority-Muslim countries for restrictions on immigration to the United States, but made allowances for people of minority religions within those countries. Trump told the Christian Broadcasting Network that Christian refugees would be given priority. When a federal court stopped this order from taking effect, President Trump issued a new one containing, in the words of his advisor Stephen Miller “minor technical differences.”In these actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Illegal WarIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has waged numerous wars in violation of the United Nations Charter and of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, both treaties part of the Supreme Law of the United States under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.President Trump and his subordinates attempted to mislead the U.S. public and Congress about justifications for wars, including by claiming to have knowledge that the Syrian government used chemical weapons, as well as by falsely stating the number of U.S. troops deployed to various wars.President Trump has escalated bombing campaigns in Iraq and Syria, resulting in large numbers of civilian deaths. After campaigning for office in opposition to the war on Afghanistan, Trump has effectively made it a permanent operation. President Trump spoke at the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency on January 23, 2017, and promoted an illegal policy of waging wars for the theft of resources. Trump has overseen the U.S. military's collaboration in the illegal bombing of Yemen by Saudi Arabia, in violation of the Leahy Law and resulting in a severe humanitarian crisis.By these actions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and the world. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Illegal Threat of Nuclear WarIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has flagrantly threatened nuclear war ("fire and fury") against North Korea, in violation of the United Nations Charter, a treaty that is part of the Supreme Law of the United States under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.Trump later threatened Iran with "CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE," also declaring "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran."By these and similar actions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and the world. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Abuse of Pardon PowerIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has issued a pardon for former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Joe Arpaio, who had been convicted of contempt for failure to comply with a court order in a case charging him with racial discrimination.Arpaio was open about his commission of the underlying crime, for which he was found guilty in a civil suit. His contempt conviction was for continuing to engage in racial profiling, violating an order to cease doing so.Arpaio set up a prison that he called a concentration camp. It had a high death rate with deaths often unexplained. He enclosed Latino prisoners with electric fencing.By this action, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and the world. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Obstruction of JusticeIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," has obstructed justice.The day after President Trump was briefed by White House Counsel on dishonest statements by then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn who was being investigated by the FBI, Trump met with the director of the FBI James Comey and demanded his personal loyalty. Two weeks later Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation. Later still, Trump fired Comey. By Trump's own words (Watch Lester Holt's Extended Interview With President Trump), his motivation was at least partly to obstruct the investigation.By this action, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and the world. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Politicizing ProsecutionsIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," has directed or endeavored to direct law enforcement, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to investigate and prosecute political adversaries and others -- and to not prosecute political allies -- for improper purposes not justified by any lawful function of his office, thereby eroding the rule of law, undermining the independence of law enforcement from politics, and compromising the constitutional right to due process of law.On the Friday before Election Day 2017, the president issued a remarkable series of public statements, including on Twitter, pressuring the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party, and other political adversaries.Earlier, the president had called Army soldier Bowe Bergdahl a "dirty, rotten traitor" while court-martial charges were pending.On September 3, 2018, President Donald J. Trump tweeted this: "Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff…” This cannot be read but as potentially influencing the current or a future Attorney General or others in law enforcement to politicize prosecutions.In 1940, Attorney General (later Supreme Court Justice) Robert Jackson warned that "the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power" was "picking the man and then . . . putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him." A chief executive who uses law enforcement to persecute political enemies is characteristic of a banana republic, not a constitutional republic. That is why Republican and Democratic presidents alike have respected the independence of law enforcement. In the case of military courts-martial, such as Bergdahl's, this limit is formalized in the prohibition of "command influence."Congress set a precedent with the second article of impeachment against President Richard Nixon, which cited, in its fifth specification, his use of federal investigative agencies against political opponents. Following this precedent, the president's attempts to employ the criminal investigative powers of the federal government against political opponents "for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office" are grounds for impeachment, even if they did not succeed in influencing law enforcement.By this action, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and the world. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Collusion Against the United States with a Foreign GovernmentIn his conduct while President-Elect of the United States, Donald J. Trump and his transition team lobbied foreign governments, including those of Egypt and Russia on behalf of the government of Israel.Trump advisor Michael Flynn has lied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about talking, pre-inauguration, to Russia (and other countries) on behalf of the government of Israel, allegedly at the instruction of Jared Kushner, who reportedly took his direction from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.Prime Minister Netayahu wanted Russia to block or delay a UN resolution against illegal Israeli settlements, because then-President of the United States Barack Obama had chosen not to veto it. News reports in December 2016 said that Russia, while it did not veto, did try to delay the vote. Also, in December 2016, the government of Egypt said it had delayed the vote because President-Elect Trump had phoned the president of Egypt on behalf of Israel.In these actions and decisions, Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Failure to Reasonably Prepare for or Respond to Hurricanes Harvey and MariaIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which was established to "provide for the common defense," and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has failed to reasonably prepare for events like Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Maria or to adequately respond to those hurricanes.The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was without a new director until June 2017. The National Hurricane Center was without a head from May 2017 through the time of Hurricane Harvey in August. On August 15, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that rejected the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard, which had been established by executive order in 2015, and which required that infrastructure be built to withstand flooding. He already had disbanded the Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment and withdrawn the United States from the Paris climate agreement. When Hurricane Harvey hit, President Donald Trump did not engage in rescue and recovery operations on the scale required. His subordinates at FEMA proposed that private individuals fund and perform those tasks on their own.When Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico in September 2017, and for the months that followed, President Trump refused significant aid, despite widespread devastation, lack of electricity, and lack of medical care that, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2018, left over 4,600 people dead. For weeks Trump even blocked aid to Puerto Rico from other nations, refusing to waive the Jones Act as he had done following Hurricane Harvey, even as numerous experts predicted the sort of death and suffering that resulted.By these actions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and the world. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Separating Children and Infants from FamiliesIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," has overseen the work of his subordinates who have forcibly separated thousands of refugee children and infants from their families, imprisoned them in inhumane conditions including on military bases and in the private facilities of military contractors, denied access to these sites sought by members of Congress, failed to meet or even to plausibly attempt to meet a court-imposed deadline to reunite children with their families, and defended these policies with hate-inspiring rhetoric almost certainly resulting in additional violence and cruelty by government employees and private individuals alike (see also Article of Impeachment on "Incitement of Violence").In these actions, Donald J. Trump has abused his high office and violated numerous legal requirements in an explicit effort to punish and deter people who in many cases stand accused of no legal violations themselves, and in other cases are accused of a misdemeanor. These actions by President Trump have violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the United States is party, the Convention on the Rights of the Child to which every other nation on earth is party, the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has maintained that "the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the] Court." President Trump's subsequent Executive Order stating that families would be imprisoned as groups, rather than being separated, would have failed to bring him into compliance with international law or the Constitution even if implemented.On September 6, 2018, the Trump administration announced a new rule that would allow immigrant children with their parents to be imprisoned indefinitely, in violation of a 1997 court settlement agreement that limits the imprisonment of children to 20 days.In these actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and people seeking asylum and refuge in the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Illegally Attempting to Influence an ElectionWhile campaigning for the office of President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, according to the sworn testimony and the guilty plea of his attorney Michael Cohen, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to buy the silence of individuals, and did so with the intent of influencing the election and in violation of campaign finance laws.On August 21, 2018, Cohen admitted in federal court that he had paid Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to silence them before the 2016 election at Donald J. Trump's "direction." Cohen said he acted "in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office" and "for the principal purpose of influencing the election." This testimony implicates Donald J. Trump in the crime of conspiring to make an excessive and illegal campaign contribution. It also implicates him in the high crime and misdemeanor of attempting to fraudulently influence -- and quite possibly successfully influence -- the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. As President, he lied about and tried to cover-up his wrongdoing.In this action, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Tax Fraud and Public MisrepresentationIn his conduct prior to assuming the office of President of the United States, Donald J. Trump engaged in extensive tax fraud which served as the basis for his dramatic misrepresentation to the public of his accomplishments.According to evidence and documentation made public by the New York Times and not countered by President Trump, he and his siblings committed numerous felonies in the course of obtaining wealth from their father while paying approximately 5% rather than the 55% in taxes that the law required.They did this, in part, by undervaluing properties, a crime known as appraisal fraud. Donald Trump and his siblings claimed that properties given them by their father were worth $41.4 million but sold those properties for over 16 times that amount during the next decade.Another crime employed was transfer pricing. Trump and his siblings massively overcharged their father's companies for largely nonexistent services in order to both obtain his wealth and reduce his profits. The reduction in profits allowed Trump's father to increase the rent he charged people for publicly subsidized, rent-controlled properties.Through these and other fraudulent activities, Donald Trump was made wealthy by the transfer of money from his father. In the analysis of one expert, if Trump had simply invested that money in a simple investment fund, he would now have the $10 billion he falsely claimed to have as a candidate for president. In reality, Trump lost a fortune through business failures. As a candidate, however, by lying about his wealth and the origins of his wealth, Donald Trump misled voters to believe that, while he had no political record he did have a very successful business record. Trump falsely claimed to have received only $1 million from his father which he had been required to pay back "with interest."In these and many similar actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Assaulting Freedom of the PressIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has repeatedly undermined the freedom of the press.President Trump has threatened to use libel law to go after media outlets that have displeased him. On March 30, 2017, he tweeted: “The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?” On April 30, 2017, his then chief of staff Reince Priebus confirmed that changing libel laws is “something we’ve looked at,” adding that “newspapers and news agencies need to be more responsible with how they report the news.” On July 2, 2017, President Donald J. Trump tweeted a video of himself body slamming a man with an image of “CNN” superimposed on him.President Trump has threatened to remove broadcasting licenses from media outlets that have displeased him. On October 11, 2017, he tweeted: ‘‘With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!’’ and ‘‘Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!’’President Trump's White House, on February 24, 2017, barred certain news media — CNN, the New York Times, the L.A. Times, and Politico — from attending a White House press briefing. In June 2017, his administration prohibited video recordings of White House press briefings. In November 2018, his administration suspended the press credential of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta, falsely accusing him of “placing his hands” on a white house intern.President Trump has repeatedly referred to news media as “the enemy of the people,” while expressing his desire that journalistic activity be stifled. For example: On February 17, 2017, Trump tweeted: ‘‘The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!’’. On July 22, 2017, Trump tweeted: “A new INTELLIGENCE LEAK from the Amazon Washington Post, this time against A.G. Jeff Sessions. These illegal leaks, like Comey's, must stop!”President Trump’s rhetoric has encouraged authoritarian foreign governments to attack the very U.S. media that Trump criticizes, endangering not only press freedoms but the lives and safety of American journalists. On May 2, 2017, just ahead of World Press Freedom Day, the Committee to Protect Journalists noted that “President Trump's oft-tweeted ‘fake news’ epithet, for example, had already been adopted by repressive governments such as China, Syria, and Russia. When Trump verbally attacked a correspondent during a February press conference, he was cheered by Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the world's worst jailer of journalists.When Saudi Arabia murdered U.S./Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, President Trump made extensive efforts to deny the evidence and to prevent or minimize the consequences to the Saudi government, even while continuing his usual verbal attacks on U.S. journalists.President Trump's subordinates locked up U.S./Iranian journalist Marzieh Hashemi with no charges or trial as a "material witness."President Trump's Department of Justice has indicted Australian publisher Julian Assange on espionage charges for Wikileaks' acts of journalism and publishing.President Trump appointed William Barr as U.S. Attorney General; Barr stated at his confirmation hearings that he might jail journalists for doing their job if that job "hurt the country."Freedom of the press is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As Justice Black observed in New York Times Co. v. United States, "In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government."A president is certainly free to criticize particular news stories and outlets that he believes are inaccurate — and no above-cited tweet or statement, standing in isolation, would constitute an impeachable offense. However, President Trump's consistent pattern of verbal attacks against journalists and his administration's actions to retaliate against and exclude journalists, combined with threats to take governmental action against news outlets, crosses a line.In the above and many similar actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Supporting a Coup in VenezuelaIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,”And in his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Michael Richard Pence, in violation of his oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, have damaged the rule of law and endangered international security by supporting a coup attempt in Venezuela.On the evening of January 22, 2019, following years of damaging U.S. sanctions against Venezuela, which followed an unsuccessful 2002 U.S.-supported coup attempt, Vice President Pence reportedly called Juan Guaidó and told him that the United States would support him if he were to seize power in Venezuela. The next day, January 23, Guaidó attempted to do so. That same day, President Trump issued a statement recognizing Guaidó as the President of Venezuela, despite the fact that Venezuela had an elected president and that Guaidó had no legitimate claim to the presidency. On January 24, 2019, the Trump-Pence administration attempted unsuccessfully to persuade the Organization of American States to recognize Guaidó as president.In the above and related actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Michael Richard Pence have acted in a manner contrary to their trust as President and Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump and Michael Richard Pence, by such conduct, are guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Unconstitutional Declaration of EmergencyIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has declared a national emergency, in the absence of any actual emergency, for the purpose of spending money on a border wall that had been appropriated for other purposes.In so acting, President Trump has violated Article 1, Section 7 of the United States Constitution: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives . . . ." He has also, in so acting, violated Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . . ." The same action also violates the Federal Anti-Deficiency Statute. By using the United States military to enforce immigration law, President Trump's announced plan would also violate the Posse Comitatus Act.In addition, President Trump has abused his power by publicly promoting this action using a series of falsehoods encouraging fear, bigotry, and hatred. He has falsely suggested that immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than non-immigrants, that illegal border crossings have been increasing in recent years, that terrorist groups have sent operatives to enter the United States through Mexico, and that applying for asylum is a threatening or criminal action.In these and many similar actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Instructing Border Patrol to Violate the LawIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has directed U.S. Border Patrol agents to violate the law.On April 5, 2019, President Trump, while visiting Calexico, California, reportedly told Border Patrol agents to defy U.S. law and refuse to allow migrants into the United States. The President went further, instructing Border Patrol agents to lie to a judge if charged with violating the law. "If judges give you trouble, say, 'Sorry, judge, I can't do it. We don't have the room,'" said the President. Upon the President's departure, Border Patrol officials instructed their agents that, contrary to the President's instructions, they were required to obey the law.President Trump went further still, informing Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan, according to "senior administration officials" who spoke with CNN, that he would "grant McAleenan a pardon if he were sent to jail for having border agents block asylum seekers from entering the U.S. in defiance of US law."Paralleling his lawless efforts to keep refugees and immigrants out of the United States, President Trump continued to promote his policy of separating infants and children from families (see separate Article of Impeachment), and proposed shipping and releasing imprisoned refugees to particular parts of the United States for reasons of electoral politics, not human welfare.In these and many similar actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.Refusal to Comply with SubpoenasIn his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce witnesses, papers, and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 22, 2019, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives on April 2, 2019. The subpoenaed witnesses, papers, and things were deemed necessary by the Committees in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge, or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be potential grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these witnesses, papers, and things Donald J. Trump, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiries, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives. In all of this, Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.Declaration of Emergency Without Basis In Order to Violate the Will of CongressIn his conduct while President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” has declared a state of emergency in the absence of any actual emergency in order to violate the will of Congress and provide deadly weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in its assault on civilians in Yemen.On May 24, 2019, the Secretary of State announced this policy, justifying it as a means "to deter Iranian aggression." No evidence of Iranian aggression was offered, but President Trump and his subordinates had in the preceding days and weeks been engaged in actions that might provoke Iranian "aggression," including threatening attacks on Iran, moving troops and weapons to the region, declaring part of the Iranian military to be a terrorist organization, producing allegations against Iran widely doubted even by U.S. officials, and -- indeed -- providing weapons to Saudi Arabia.Congress had been blocking the sale of certain weapons to Saudi Arabia, and the clear purpose of declaring a false emergency was to subvert the will of Congress.In these actions and decisions, President Donald J. Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President Donald J. Trump, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.It is incumbent upon the Congress of the United States to do its job! #periodThanks for the question Harry.