Criminal In The White House

I've spent the last three or so years on this blog trying to convince everyone who will listen that Donald Trump is not someone who Bible-believing Christians should be defending, let alone cheering for. Whereas most of my arguments are Biblical in nature, and based largely on judgments of his actions and character, I now also appeal to law and linguistics.

The following is a quote from my textbook used in the Forensic Linguistics class I took last semester (Solan, L. M. & Tiersma, P. M. (2005). Speaking of Crime: the Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago University Press, p.181.):

Solicitation
Not only is it illegal to commit a crime, but people can also be punished for asking or inducing someone else to do so. This is the crime of solicitation...The state must usually prove that the solicitor intended the crime to be committed, although the crime does not actually have to be carried out. What is essential, at least under federal law, is that the solicitor "solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade"(1) someone else to engage in the crime. The essence of solicitation is language.

The speech act that the defendant must have performed is a request, or perhaps an offer or command.

1. 18 U.S.C. ​§ 373 (2000)

Trump is unequivocally guilty of a crime.

Whereas his likely tax fraud and his near-certain collusion with Russia remain hidden due to his relentless obstruction of justice (a prosecutable offense in itself), his crime of solicitation is now a matter of public record (WSJ, BBC, Fox News). Using one's office to launch a very dubious investigation into one's political opponent in an upcoming election is downright corruption, not to mention a huge conflict of interest.

His continued bullying of witnesses on Capitol Hill is also a matter of public record (BBC, Reuters), as well as his ambiguous allusion to "handling spies" such as the whistleblower. This is almost certainly witness tampering. I now present another quote from Solan & Tiersma (p. 204):

Indirect and Ambiguous Threats​
Threats - like other speech acts in general and like crimes of language in particular - tend to be made indirectly. Alternatively, they may be phrased in ambiguous terms to give them plausible deniability. As with other speech acts, pragmatic factors count for a lot in determining whether an utterance is a threat or something else.

The text goes on to prove at length that a speech act "counts" as a threat if it was intended to intimidate the victim, and that victim's perceptions are relevant. To quote the above article from Reuters: "Representative Adam Schiff, who is chairing the hearing in the House Intelligence Committee, asked Yovanovitch for her reaction to the tweet. She said it was 'very intimidating.' ”

Regardless of your politics, the highest office in the land is, and rightfully ought to be, accountable to the law. Whether the Senate Republicans abide by their constitutional oath or not remains to be seen, but even if they don't, the man is absolutely guilty.

There is no rational defense.