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
Gosh, I hope you’re right. Why do you think it wouldn’t be good for them, and if it wasn’t they’d not move forward, @hoyacon?
I fear that they have built up so much hysteria that they will have to bow to the flood of demands to kick him out! I just think they don’t want impeachment efforts to compromise the mid-terms.
67 need in Senate. That’s a long shot.
It is a long shot, @phcheese. But the House only requires a majority. And the fireworks will be lit off for an indefinite period.
It seems Trump thrives on chaos. Don’t worry be happy!
I can think of four, Cindy McCain might make five Republicans who might vote to impeach. Still a long shot.
I see that other people made my point on the second page.
I think the Senate wouldn’t even bring to trial, thereby making a symbolic way to fire up the base about Republicans to get out the vote for 2020
Which is the entire point of the whole exercise
Sadly it all depends on the election in November.
What an idiot. Graduations of Cal should be embarrassed. Here’s the money quote:
Then there is some BS about the Supreme court inventing a constitutional process of annulment. He also mentions something a that not stupid “the States could amend the Constitution to annul the Trump presidency”, but is laughably insane. Now you don’t have to read that.
Back to the thread about impeachment. It won’t happen. It would be political suicide for the Dems.
You do mean, a way to fire up the Democrat base, I assume. There is more to be lost than we think, just looking at the obvious. BTW, I’m not so sure there aren’t a few who really hope to evict him!
Can you give us a hint, @richardeaston?
Thanks for that positive thought, OTLC! ;-)
It’s all well and good for the likes of Tom Steyer to write columns from afar and for a few members of Congress to talk impeachment. But when articles of impeachment are filed, the allegations are there in black and white and the Democrats will have to stand by them “officially.” It will become even more of a national controversy and those allegations will be scrutinized to the max. Assuming no new revelations, they will be seen as the hot air that they are, and reflect badly on those in support. Canny Democrats likely get that and will step in with a reality check so that Trump doesn’t benefit from insufficient charges as Clinton did.
Thanks for the post. If proven, those allegations taken together would justify impeachment. But they have not been proven. If I were in the House, I would not vote to even start an Inquiry, let alone vote for impeachment. I am waiting for the results of the Mueller Probe.
However, if Mueller is fired, in my mind that would cross the line, and I would vote to start an Inquiry and would hire Mueller as Counsel for the committee.
It all really depends on the evidence, not the allegations. And the evidence is not there today.
By whom?
The Supreme Court of Ricochet, Justice Hypatia presiding.
Seriously, there will be a defense and once there are concrete allegations, as opposed to editorial page musings, there’s something tangible to look at.
That’s OK, then.
And his towers shall be sundered and his graven name stricken from the Sidewalk of Hollywood.
Sadly, we have lost our darling Hypatia due to CoC violations. Her brilliant writing, love of language and sense of humor will be greatly missed.
Well, the petty detail about whether the Dems take a 2/3 majority in the Senate might be a little bit relevant, since that’s what is required for conviction.
I hope that she will be back soon. While I often disagreed with her, she put me through my paces.
This is a play on the end of Orwell’s Animal Farm, when all the other surviving farm animals see the hogs partying with the men from whom the animals had supposedly freed themselves. The hogs were in charge because of the new rule “some animals are more equal.”
It’s getting hard to know who is truly on whose side, @cliffordabrown: Democrats, Lefties, Socialists, pro-Trump people, anti-Trump people and let’s not forget the Independents . Who is “partying” with whom? I guess at some point we’ll find out; in the meantime, it makes for uneasy thoughts.
I stand correctified, Larry. That does seem a bi-i-i-it of a stretch.
Yeah, a bit. Especially considering that for the Democrats to get to 67 seats in the Senate they would need to take 18 seats currently held by Republicans, but there are only 9 such seats up for election this year. Still, I’m sure Steyer has an explanation of how it can be done.
If serious, Steyer is counting on Sasse, Graham, and the abortion guardians from the two ends of the country to get the ball rolling. Then roll in enough “purple state” members to get McConnell to go up to the White House like it’s 1974. Only it isn’t. Trump fights, and has right on his side, unlike Nixon. So, the only question is how much damage the Senate GOP will to itself by allowing #NeuterTrump* Senators to continue support for the coup attempt? At what point does McConnell take a public stand alongside the President? I think by Friday after the November election.
* I coined the term with the clear meaning of rendering Trump ineffective while not removing him from office. It plays effectively off “Never,” showing a different intent — “never” is unfocused, while “neuter” as an active verb suggests a program of completely stymieing Trump and his voters. I did not originally consider another image, but Senator Joni Ernst won office by telling Iowans what she would do to the hogs at the trough in Washington. This helped win the Republicans the Senate majority, and, in her victory speech, she promised Iowa “we are going to make them squeal.” It is clear the Swamp wants to do to others as others were threatening to do to the Swamp — imposing political impotence.
But boy, oh boy, does it sell soap, and antacid, and pillows.
This is worth going off-topic for a sec, with apologies to the O/P and thread. “Lost” as in permanently? I hope not.
Aren’t there some Democratic Senators in Trump states? Maybe fear woul lead some to be “Profiles in Courage.” But yeah, the whole Kabuki show is depressing as hell. Angelo Codevilla may be right: the republic is over and we must get used to imperial politics from now on, i.e., not argument and persuasion but brute force in all matters.
According to Hypatia, she has been permanently banned.