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
Strikes me one measure of the degree of success of an endeavor is the degree to which it is opposed. Opposition to POTUS 45 is off the charts. Thanks to Trump, the Left has taken real hits in the means/institutions that have advanced their agenda over past decades. Examples:
This president is acting on campaign promises, will not be cowed, and gives every indication he plans to continue doing what he thinks is needed to right Good Ship America.
There has been enough information (much of it from non-mainstream news sources) to indicate federal officials acted in bad faith (putting it nicely) toward the Trump campaign and after his election. The Left seems to be intent on taking the USA to the edges of our Constitution trying to depose a duly elected President — I’ve never seen anything like it before in this country.
I don’t want to think about what might happen should Steyer or other anti-Trump individual get rid of this POTUS by any other means than beating him at the ballot box fairly.
This is an excellent summary of accomplishments, @mim526. Again, not just Trump but all Republicans (not just those running for office) need to tout these successes. And I’d also like to see other Republicans speaking out about the media and excesses about the Left. If enough of them did so, we might see some shifts on their part.
That really is scary.
I think you’re right about the blowback the Dems fear, but I think we will get the Impeachment Show in some form anyway. Maybe it will be just lots of talk about it (When will it happen? Is this the high crime? Why won’t Repubs do the right thing?), but the groundswell (ratings) for the show is real.
I see some GOP listing accomplishments, but no citing them as cause of Left’s hysteria. Some people running for reelection feel, I think, that they need to distance themselves from Trump. The better plan seems to me would be if you’re a Senator to list some Senate achievements (e.g., judicial), a House rep talk about tax reform, etc. Then tie in to some things like those I’ve listed so that it’s the GOP as a whole needed to accomplish more reforms to continue reinvigorating America.
I think they need to call out the Dems, too, for being so afraid the GOP will succeed they’re willing to try to overturn an election by any means to stop progress. Show the threat of impeachment as desperate fear.
I don’t disagree, but it’s interesting that those supporting Trump are winning their elections for the most part. So they may be making a mistake dissociating themselves from him
Meh. I don’t think the Democrats give a whit about evidence or proof. They want Trump gone or diminished, that’s all.
i made the argument that control of the Senate would not allow Democrats to remove Trump. They need a 2/3 majority.
Worth repeating, @richardeaston!
What you need would be for Republican Senators to be willing to vote for impeachment.
Nixon’s case in 1974 is instructive. There were 17 Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee. Over a third of them, or 6 of 17, voted for Article I. Over 40% of them, or 7 out of 17, voted for Article II. When Barry Goldwater and the House and Senate Republican leaders went to Nixon, they said that there were the votes in the Senate to remove him. Nixon resigned.
It all depends upon the evidence. No one is above the law.
What if Trump fired Sessions, Rosenstein, and Mueller? Legal? Yes. Impeachable? Yes.
What if Trump refused to obey the Supreme Court and appear before the Grand Jury? Impeachable? Yes.
What If Trump appeared before the Grand Jury, But pled the Fifth Amendment? Legal? Yes. Impeachable? Yes.
What if Trump pardoned his son Don Jr., Manafort, Flynn, and Stone? Legal? Yes. Impeachable? Yes.
If these things occur, they will prove the maxim that the cover-up is often worse than the crime.
Speaking for myself, I find the term “NeuterTrump” to be offensive and inaccurate. How about the term “Constitutional Republicans”?
I am sorry to hear that.
I think that a President Pence would carry out these policies, as well as a President Haley, Sasse, Romney, Kasich, Ryan or Flake, with some emphasizing these points to different vigor. More importantly, all of them would nominate conservative judges. The bullet points are all Republican orthodoxy.
Gary, you are not going to move Republican Senators in that way.
Aside from the fact that these are assumptions on your part, and I assume they are geared to inflame, please discontinue this line of discussion.
Again, Gary, let’s stay in the present and stop guessing at the future. Please.
Vigah, please.
We need to shout it from the rooftops, especially our leadership in Congress.
[“Pro-life” : “Pro-choice”] or [“Anti-abortion” : “Pro-abortion”] — Naturally people will use language to their advantage and object to opponents’ rhetorically effective phrases. It is just a normal part of political discourse, discourse which includes the occasional renewal of objections to opposition’s choice of terms. In this case, neither of us wishes to concede the other’s characterization of what is happening in our national politics.
That may well be true. We shall see. To quote Trump: “Time will tell.”
If he were to say, “Well, yes I contacted the Russians but I didn’t realize that it was against the law, please forgive me” I think that Americans would forgive him. (I would.) But I don’t think that he can do that.
Hi Susan,
I truly did not mean to inflame. The question was what grounds, if any, could I see for impeachment. But, as you are the post’s author, I will accede to your request.
Blessings.
Gary
You are the Post’s Author. I will respect your wishes.
I understand. I am simply making a request. I stopped using the word “Tr*mpk*ns” upon request before it was banned. However, I have no control over what you do.
It’s too bad, Gary, that you can’t self-reflect on your own comments. You might learn a bit about yourself and the impact of your words on others.
Thank you. Point taken.
I did not mean to inflame. I just do it often without meaning to do so. I have learned to sincerely apologize.
I am exiting from this thread out of respect to you as the post’s author. I took the points I had made and filed my own post on the Member Feed.
And that would be the Democrats purpose in pursuing impeachment proceedings: to distract and hamstring President Trump for the remainder of his term in office. They know the Senate wouldn’t vote to convict so using impeachment to derail further action by his administration is the ultimate weapon. Failing this they would use constant hearings and investigations toward the same end. Whatever they could do to disrupt and hamstring effective action would work to their advantage until they could recapture the WH. The only way to avoid this is for the voters to retain a Republican majority in Congress, both houses. I do think that is a possibility but not a probability but predictions are difficult, especially about the future.
Can this be true? By whom? With what due process? Could it be the case that a majority of Ricochet members would wish the permanent banning of anyone, let alone someone like Hypatia? If so, how was that determined? Say it ain’t so, Rico.
Moderator @SkipSul provided an explanation regarding Hypatia in comment 22 of this thread:
http://ricochet.com/547125/should-pulpits-ring-with-trump-esp-this-week/#comment-4261014
It’s a shame that none of those folks were running or would have beaten Hillary.