President Donald Trump gestures towards members on the media on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 26, 2019, after returning from United Nations General Assembly. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

With impeachment dying on the vine and Pelosi sitting in her office terrified to move forward, Democrats need some new crazy ideas to get them through 2020. Enter Bloomberg with this hot take of legal analysis.

One way to stop Trump from tampering in the 2020 election: Sue him https://t.co/99nuVxCEeo

— Bloomberg Opinion (@bopinion) January 2, 2020

Here’s a message to Democrats and all patriots: Don’t give up when the Senate acquits Donald Trump.

File suit right away to prevent him from going to any foreign government to fix the election.

The House bill of impeachment makes clear that Trump used the power of his office — indeed, compromised his obligation to defend the country — when he held up aid to Ukraine to extract a partisan advantage in 2020. As federal citizens, we have a right under the First Amendment to a free and fair election, without the highest government officer of the land using corrupt means to help his re-election.

The lawsuit to stop Trump from continuing this course of action would not seek retroactive relief. This would not be a damages claim, but an order to stop him in the future.

Let’s start with the false premise that Trump is “tampering” with the 2020 election. Contrary to the hyperventilating in the media, candidates have fairly wide leverage to make their case to voters. If Trump wants to send Giuliani over to Ukraine to get information on Biden, he’s legally allowed to do so. Just ask Hillary Clinton if you have any doubts. He’s also not obligated to let things slide, such as investigating Biden and Ukraine, just because it might harm a political opponent. You can ask Barack Obama about that one.

But aside from that, this “legal analysis” is just garbage.

Let the president deny there was a quid pro quo? Fine, because this opens him up to discovery and a deposition. Let the president claim executive privilege? Also fine, because there is no executive privilege to engage in a criminal act.

Nor would the “political question” doctrine bar relief, because of improper second-guessing of U.S. foreign policy. It’s not “foreign policy” if the president is shaking down a foreign leader to kick in to his re-election. Likewise, it is not a matter of “zoning policy” when a Chicago alderman wants a bribe to make a change.

The “political question” doctrine is a bar only if the Constitution were to commit the right to extortion and bribery to the exclusive discretion of the president. Well, it doesn’t.

Well, in order to override executive privilege via a criminal trial, you’d first need a crime to have been committed. This writer is sorely lacking in that department. He’s got plenty of generic hyperbole though, such as saying that Trump “shook down” a foreign leader. That simply didn’t happen, as evidenced by the call transcript itself.

Even still, such questions most certainly do fall under the political question doctrine. The President has near-total control over foreign policy decisions. The civil courts would never be allowed to start dictating those matters simply because one political party got their panties in a bunch. Trump did not commit “extortion and bribery.” Want to know how I know? Because even Democrats weren’t stupid enough to include that in their articles of impeachment.

Reading through this guy’s article, it’s hard to even get a gauge of what he’s trying to propose. What exactly is a civil court going to give injunctive relief from? Trump talking to foreign leaders? Running campaign ads? How exactly does the AG in California, an example he used, have standing? And standing to challenge what? None of this makes any sense but it’s another example of just how desperate the left are at this point.

But this is what Harvard is pumping out these days. Ridiculous, conspiratorial legal advice centered around pushing a political objective.

I wish I was shameless enough to take money to write "legal analysis" that was complete bullshit like this, but alas I combine laziness with a sense of probity. https://t.co/FiOLx0HLNa

— Jeff B, fightin' the COVID one bootleg at a time (@EsotericCD) January 2, 2020