An argument for impeachment

Although we recently celebrated Thanksgiving, there is just a bit of irony in the use of that word at this challenging time in our nation’s history.  It is interesting to reflect that in my lifetime, we have endured two impeachments and a third that will, no doubt, reach that status, in a period of around five decades.  Prior to the 1970’s, the previous impeachment was back in 1868.  A little over 100 years passed until we had the impeachment inquiry of Richard Nixon.  As we know, the Judiciary Committee of the House approved two articles of impeachment against the current president and next week the full House will, undoubtedly, support the Committee’s recommendations.  The Republican controlled Senate will conduct a trial and the outcome will be a mystery to no one.  The president will be acquitted by a vote that will, probably, follow party lines.  Although this will be the third impeachment trial, no president has been found guilty.  Nixon resigned rather than face the possibility of being impeached.

Does acquittal mean that there is no guilt?  Absolutely not.  To reach a vote that would lead to the removal of the president, there would need to be 67 senators vote in favor of this to happen.  A very high bar to attain.  In reviewing the now famous phone call between the president and his counterpart in Ukraine, it is difficult for me to come to any conclusion other than a direct request was made by Trump.  Further, there has been enough evidence to support the fact that around $400 million in military aid was being held as leverage to persuade the Ukrainian president to do Trump’s bidding.  The words are there for all to read in the “perfect call”! The argument that, ultimately, Ukraine received the aid does not negate the substance of the words in the call.  Let me draw an analogy from the time I was a Juvenile Probation Officer in Indianapolis.  I recall a case I had where a young person had held a gun on someone to rob them and even though the gun was not real, the judge ruled that the person being robbed did not know this.  The act was the same as if the gun would have been real and loaded.  Not being real was not an excuse to absolve the young man from being responsible for putting the victim in fear.  How is this any different from what occurred in the interaction between Trump and Zelensky?   

In In reviewing the impeachment of the other three presidents there is an obvious difference in what the other three were charged with and the current articles of impeachment.  Briefly, in Andrew Johnson’s impeachment there were 11 Articles of Impeachment, but nine of the 11 dealt with the Violation of Tenure in Office Act.  This was an Act that was passed in 1867 to limit the president’s ability to remove individuals from office without senatorial approval.  He attempted to remove the Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, and this led to the impeachment.  The vote in the senate sparred him from removal by one vote.  The vote was 35 guilty and 19 not guilty on each Article; therefore, the two-thirds majority was not reached.

There were three articles of impeachment brought by the House Judiciary Committee against President Richard Nixon; obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of congress.  Each of these articles revolved around the breaking into the Democratic Headquarters at Watergate and the subsequent cover up by members of the president’s staff and the president, himself.  He resigned from the office of president prior to the vote of the full house and the subsequent trial in the senate.

In the impeachment of President Bill Clinton there were four articles of impeachment created by the House Judiciary Committee, but only two were approved by the full House.  The first article dealt with the commission of perjury, including false and misleading testimony.  The second article focused on the obstruction of justice, specific to the case brought against him by Paula Jones.  The vote in the senate on the first article was defeated with 55 not guilty votes and 45 guilty votes.  On the second article the vote was evenly split 50-50.  Neither vote reach the two-thirds requirement.

In each of the other three instances where impeachment proceedings were brought against a president, the basis of the decisions revolved around domestic-related issues: Violating a politically motivated act of congress, breaking into a rival’s headquarters and covering it up, and lying about civil actions brought against the president.  In the current impeachment proceedings, the articles focus on the interaction with a foreign entity for the benefit of the sitting president.  Just on the face of it, the current action is much more egregious.  Not only was the call a source of specific information, but the failure to respond to subpoenas and denying access to staff comes quite close to the actions of Nixon.  The defiance of the president is without excuse, but quite consistent with the behavior we have witnessed since he took office. Resorting to name-calling and demeaning others has been his hallmark reaction to any situation that does not fit his preconceived notion of what should be.  His most recent admonition to the Democrats that the they have brought embarrassment to the country is just a bit misplaced.  No, Mr. President, it is you who has been an embarrassment to the country and to the office of the president.  It is you who has been the laughingstock of other world leaders, as was apparent at the most recent NATO meeting.