Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Next Brouhaha: Impeachment
The Left’s threats of impeachment of Trump have affected me in a number of ways: annoyance, incredulity, outrage, and weariness. They have been banging that drum since Trump was elected and, for the most part, I’ve ignored the noise. But the drums are beating louder, in spite of the Democrat leadership’s call to simmer down until after the elections.
Leftist Tom Steyer, a California billionaire determined to remove Trump from office (in addition to pursuing other foolish endeavors), has generated enough attention that he recently published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. I thought it was a good opportunity to learn his agenda for impeachment. I must say, I was both disquieted and angry.
The most direct way of looking at the Steyer’s reasons for impeaching Trump is to look at the source of his accusations, Free Speech for People. For this discussion, I’ve included each impeachment offense, quoted Steyer’s description of the “bottom line” regarding the charge, and then added my interpretation. (You can see the details of the charges through the link.)
- Obstructing Justice. Steyer’s Bottom Line: “Trump has repeatedly attempted to interfere in the Russia investigation, and admitted as much—that’s a clear case of obstructing justice.” My interpretation: We don’t like Trump repeatedly criticizing the Russian investigation; he should leave Mueller alone.
- Violating the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Steyer’s Bottom Line: “Because Trump never divested from his business interests, he violates the Constitution every time the Trump Organization has business dealings with foreign or American government officials.” My interpretation: We refuse to accept Trump’s turning control of his businesses to his children and his not divesting himself from those businesses (which he is not required to do by law)
- Conspiring with Others to Commit Crimes Against the United States, and Attempting to Conceal Those Violations. Steyer’s Bottom Line: “Trump tried to cover up his campaign’s contacts with a Russian national—which, at the very least, constituted a violation of federal law.” My interpretation: We refuse to accept that Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian national only to get dirt on the Clinton campaign, even if it wasn’t illegal. He had to be conniving with the Russians.
- Advocating Violence and Undermining Equal Protection Under the Law. Steyer’s Bottom Line: “Trump has demonstrated a pattern of behavior amounting to advocating violence, undercutting equal protection, and, as a result, failing basic Constitutional Duties.” My interpretation: We hate the way Trump addressed the rioting in Charlottesville, clearly supporting neo-Nazis, and we abhor his tweets on immigration that we believe attack Muslims.
- Abusing the Pardon Power. Steyer’s Bottom Line: “Trump’s pardon of Joe Arpaio violates the Fifth Amendment and harms the guarantee of Constitutional Rights.” My interpretation: We despise Joe Arpaio, and someone like him shouldn’t be pardoned.
- Engaging in Conduct that Grossly Endangers the Peace and Security of the United States. Steyer’s Bottom Line: “Trump cannot be permitted to recklessly and needlessly endanger millions of Americans with his unstable behavior.” My interpretation: We despise Trump’s behavior, comments, and tweets, and think he should behave like a normal (by our definition) human being and act presidential.
- Directing Law Enforcement to Investigate and Prosecute Political Adversaries for Improper and Unjustifiable Purposes. Steyer’s Bottom Line: “Trump’s threats against political opponents are threats against American Democracy.” My interpretation: We are offended by the way Trump criticizes anyone he dislikes, including Hillary Clinton, federal law enforcement, and his own Attorney General.
- Undermining the Freedom of the Press. Steyer’s Bottom Line: “Trump’s threats against freedom of the press are also threats against American Democracy.” My interpretation: Trump shouldn’t criticize the press for publishing fake news.
- Cruelly and Unconstitutionally Imprisoning Children and their Families. Steyer’s Bottom Line: “Trump’s policy endangers thousands of immigrant children and families basic Constitutional values.” My interpretation: We shouldn’t have to imprison families, and we wouldn’t if Trump would just open up the borders.
After reading these charges, you might say to yourself that they are ludicrous, unsubstantial and innocuous. That’s what I thought. But then I read a bit more about bringing impeachment charges, and I wasn’t so certain that we all shouldn’t be concerned. One source explained that determining an impeachable offense is not straightforward. It suggested four possible interpretations:
Congressional Interpretation: The first general school of thought is that the standard enunciated by the Constitution is subject entirely to whatever interpretation Congress collectively wishes to make. . . This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress. However there are some, particularly in Congress, who hold this opinion.
An Indictable Crime: The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.
Misdemeanor: The proponents of this view focus on the word ‘misdemeanor’ which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. Initially the standard was to be ‘malpractice or neglect of duty.’ This was removed and replaced with ‘treason, bribery or corruption.’ The word ‘corruption’ was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term ‘maladministration.’ This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ was adopted in its place. There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.
Relating to the President’s Official Duties: The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply ‘maladministration.’ This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase ‘high crimes or misdemeanors’ which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.
* * *
I know that the odds of impeachment charges being filed and passed in the House aren’t very good; the Senate’s removing Trump is even more unlikely. I find Tom Steyer’s arguments unconvincing for the first three descriptions of impeachable offenses, but the last description, “Relating to the President’s Official Duties,” does make me wonder. Holding on to the House and Senate as a result of the midterms is paramount.
I don’t think we need to panic about the potential of a successful impeachment, but I also think we shouldn’t be unconcerned. The current discord and outrage will intensify to new levels. Trump’s agenda and accomplishments will likely be completely ignored.
On the other hand, we can just sit back in our lounge chairs and watch the show unfold, since we are unlikely to hear Republicans protesting.
And you think the last two years have been chaotic.
Published in Politics
That’s nothing. Read this by Robert Reich and really get indigestion. https://www.newsweek.com/robert-reich-if-trump-guilty-his-presidency-must-be-annulled-opinion-1092345
The reality of the process is that an impeachable offense is whatever Congress says it is. So the only true impeachable offense is holding office when your opponents control the House.
Thank you for taking this on. It’s entirely possible for ideologues like Steyer to manufacture grounds for impeachment as long as their words are allowed to stand on their own. We can actually stop at #1 for an illustration, with ” . . . repeatedly attempted to interfere in the Russia investigation . . . ” Now, Steyer cannot say that Trump has interfered in the investigation, so he falls back on “attempted,” a subjective term in this context of little consequence. But he also likely knows that there’s a Greek chorus out there incapable of seeing that distinction. Great job with the italicized alternative takes.
Not sure why you spent so many words on this, Susan.
Short version:
Dems take House, Repubs hold Senate – Trump impeached, not removed.
Dems take House and Senate – Trump impeached and removed.
All other details pretty irrelevant.
Good grief. So impeachment would be too good for him (plus it’s very difficult to do) so let’s kick him and his whole administration out. Makes sense to me. Sigh. Thanks for the link, @nohaaj.
A very fine way to describe it, @idahoklahoman. That’s what makes me a bit nervous.
True. But would you have read the post? And you’d have missed my brilliant analysis! Plus I was fascinated by the distortions of Steyer and the descriptions of impeachment.
It’s clear from where some members of Ricochet are getting their talking points.
“The creatures looked from Steyer to Ricochet member, and from Ricochet member to Steyer, and from Steyer to Ricochet member again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
What? Do you want to try to state that another way?
Susan, good post. Steyer wants to use his billions to first dislodge a duly elected President and then run for the office himself. He is so liberal even his own party is shushing him. But they won’t disassociate as he is replacing Soros as their largest source of campaign financing. He makes the Koch Bros. look bush league.
The problem with Steyer is his megalomaniac self-anointed role as the arbiter of what the world should look like. He took Obama’s marching orders and ran with it. “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”
He is dangerous.
We live in perilous times. The swamp controls much of the press and wants him gone. Despite the fact that 85-90% of Republicans support this president, their voices dim in the background as the cacophony of shrieks from the left permeate the nightly news.
Sure. There is almost no daylight between the leftist Democrat Steyer and the anti-Trump wing of the Republican party, at least where it comes to their talking points opposing Trump.
He is indeed. He’s supporting a group that wants to get power industry issues on the Arizona ballot. This activity is not illegal, but it’s a way for Steyer to get his agenda met in many states.
I’m concerned that the Republican reticence to speak out is going to energize the Left even more. It’s not a pretty picture, @goldwaterwoman.
Thank you! And I agree. I can’t help but wonder how many of them will support impeachment at the very least. If impeachment occurs, I wonder if they’ll have the guts to try to kick Trump out? Thanks @basilfawlty.
Well, Trump used the Electoral College to overturn Hillary’s popular vote victory (what do you mean fraud and illegal votes, you can’t prove anything) so since the Electoral College is undemocratic plus Putin got him elected, Trump’s presidency is illegitimate.
Robert Teich (former cabinet member, former assistant to U.S. Solicitor General Robert Bork) has he resume of a mainstream, establishment guy. OK, Harvard, Brandeis and UC Berkeley professor, but still. So, quoting the article linked by @nohaaj, here’s an establishment Democrat:
And stall any further nominations (as in Kavanagh) because they are not legitimate because Trump’s presidency is illegitimate. Then, once Trump is gone,
There are a few things that interest me about our constitution which haven’t sufficiently been fleshed out.
The Post Office, and the role of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in impeachment.
I think the Chief Justice can dismiss purely political impeachments. Its just a question that has never come up.
There is a reason the Chief Justice presides over the senate hearings, I think its to be a check/balance on the congressional power. We just don’t really know what this means.
Yes, I read it, @ontheleftcoast, and I’m glad you brought it into the post. The man is as delusional as any person who hates Trump. I have to give him points for creative hysteria, though. Thanks.
All calls for Impeachment should be met with derision, and called out as an attempt to undo the election. Unless the person making the call admits that Clinton is guilty of crimes, they are just blowing partisan smoke.
The Democrats are no longer willing to allow peaceful transfers of power. True to form for them. They were the same party who left the Union because they did not like who got elected President. In short, we have not seen Democrats this upset since they were forced to give up their slaves.
Very interesting, @guruforhire! Yes, I do remember reading something about purely political efforts at impeachments. I can’t see John Roberts stepping in and stopping the process, though. Can you?
I just finished a biography on US Grant, and I agree with you! I had no idea how hysterical the Democrats were and how hard they worked at destroying (they’d call it saving) the Union. And it was horribly violent, too. Another parallel has occurred to me, too: Grant was a big supporter of blacks, especially in their having the rights to participate in the system and to prosper. Trump is probably the first president in a long time to not only say he wants blacks to do better, but they actually are.
But to your point about a peaceful transfer of power: I think you are correct. When they don’t get their way, they will fight it. And escalate their efforts, if they must. Thanks, <span class="atwho-inserted" contenteditable="false" data-atwho-at-query="@bryan“>@bryangstephens.
bryangstephens, kinda brutal; but right on point. I agree.
I’m not a regular listener of Rush, but I was in the car when I heard him say that the fear and hysteria could have been present in the Deep State for a long time, before Trump, and that something else has set off the Left. (He has no idea what it is.) Trump’s election has just made it worse. Interesting thought, isn’t it?
An impeachable offense is whatever the Congress says it is.
It’s hard to predict what the results of impeachment would be. It’s not at all clear that the Democrats would gain anything. After all, Bill Clinton was impeached, and he stayed in office. I think Clinton’s approval actually went up after impeachment.
Had Enough Therapy? writes:
Grant showed far, far more grace than I think I would have.
They will probably keep it going as long as they can, creating disruption, ruining more reputations, and distracting the president. They haven’t been too successful at accomplishing the latter (unless you count fake news and tweets), but it will be nasty.
Mainstream Democrat Bill de Blasio says
Remember: A substantial number of voters were taught American History from Howard Zinn’s books. If they weren’t, their teachers were.
So true. How did de Blasio ever get elected? No, no don’t tell me . . .
I’m pretty convinced that, based on what we know now, impeachment would not be good for the Democrats. And I strongly suspect that party leaders with their fingers to the wind, like Schumer, realize that. I don’t see it happening without some new revelation.