Quantcast
Connect with us

I was an impeachment skeptic. Here’s why I’m now convinced Trump must be removed

Published

on

- Commentary

Despite all the uncertainty surrounding impeachment, we can capture the current moment succinctly: President Trump’s fate hinges on whether Republican senators are more fearful of losing in a primary or in the general election. Now that the live impeachment hearings are about to fuel nationwide prime-time programming, those senators’ fears are likely to intensify.

ADVERTISEMENT

While that dynamic will determine whether Trump will be removed from office, it doesn’t tell us whether he should be.  I am generally an impeachment skeptic. My recent book—Impeaching the President: Past, Present, Future—argues that impeachment should be regarded as a last resort that, as a general proposition, is inappropriate in a president’s first term.  The American people are capable of rendering judgment and should be given the first crack.

Where the current president is concerned, however, my impeachment skepticism has finally been overcome.  Speaker Pelosi was right to launch an impeachment inquiry and, barring the emergence of facts pointing in an improbable direction, the House should impeach and the Senate should convict and remove President Trump.

Just last year, I wished for Congress to defer to the American people.  With the presidential election now around the corner, isn’t the case for deferral stronger?  No. In my book, I discuss crucial exceptions to the preference for letting the voters decide the fitness of a president.

One exception arises when the president’s misconduct involves activity designed to skew things in his favor with respect to reelection.  Self-serving election-affecting behavior lay at the heart of Watergate. Much of the underlying misconduct by the Nixon administration involved improper activities against his prospective opponents in the 1972 election.  True, Congress pursued impeachment against Nixon during his second term, but no one disputes that it would have been appropriate in his first term had the extent of his malfeasance been known.

That is why recent revelations about the Trump administration’s behavior with respect to Ukraine are an impeachment game-changer.  Holding U.S. foreign policy hostage to personal benefit would be serious enough in any case, and becomes clearly impeachable when the advantage sought is to one’s own reelection.

ADVERTISEMENT

Worse still, the President Trump’s troubling phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky, in which he requested the “favor” of an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden (with circumstances suggesting that he held out military aid as reward for that favor), is not the only instance of Trump violating the law or norms surrounding U.S. elections.

Perhaps Trump was joking (as some of his supporters insist) when he urged Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s missing emails and China to investigate Mr. Biden.  But there was nothing jokey about his hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to prevent the dissemination of information about his alleged extra-marital affairs shortly before the 2016 election.  These apparent violations of campaign finance law constitute more than a technical crime: Their purpose and effect was to keep from the American people information that might have affected the election. We have the makings of a pattern: Trump’s willingness to act improperly to secure victory at the ballot box.  When a president continually engages in inappropriate behavior to win an election, the election itself ceases to be a reliable way of removing him.

Of course, not every violation is of equal magnitude.  For example, withholding lawfully appropriated military aid from foreign leaders unless they investigate Mr. Biden is probably not as bad as breaking into Democratic National Headquarters.  Even if Trump’s chat with Zelensky wasn’t quite the “perfect call,” he claims, it was hardly the most egregious interference with a U.S. election. Should we give Trump the benefit of the doubt that he wishes to root out all corruption, not simply that which benefits him politically?  Here we might heed the wisdom of Mitt Romney, who observed that Trump seems obsessive in pursuing Biden’s alleged corruption while showing little eagerness to combat corruption more broadly.

ADVERTISEMENT

Even so, we could give him the benefit of the doubt.  In my book I argue for a presumption against impeachment: “When in doubt, don’t throw him out.”  But here too, I noted that the rule is not categorical. I call one exception the “rotten store” factor, reference to a comment by a U.S. senator at the time of the Nixon impeachment inquiry.  Senator Paul Sarbanes imagined someone sifting tomatoes in a supermarket and finding that one after another was rotten. If we then sift different vegetables, and find the same thing, at a certain point we ask, “What kind of a store is this?”

Sarbanes and others eventually concluded that Nixon must go not only because he had committed high crimes and misdemeanors but also because his administration was rotten to the core.  I noted in my book that the rotten store metaphor might apply to the Trump administration, citing a range of dubious conduct by President Trump, including “seeking to prevent Muslims from entering the country . . . attacking the Justice Department, FBI, and individual federal judges, downplaying the actions of white supremacists, and waging an assault on the media (including calling them ‘the enemy of the people’) and threatening to restrict their freedom.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The sense that an administration is rotten does not suffice for impeachment: There must be high crimes or misdemeanors.  However, where there is an impeachable offense, but members of Congress consider honoring the presumption against removing the president, the rotten store may be decisive. A president may forfeit the presumption against impeachment.

When a rotten administration repeatedly seeks to gain an improper advantage at the ballot box, it no longer makes sense to regard the ballot box as the only means of removing the president from office.

Alan Hirsch, Chair of the Justice and Law Studies program at Williams College, is the author of Impeaching the President: Past, Present, Future (City Lights, 2018) and A Short History of Presidential Election Crises (And How to Prevent the Next One) (City Lights, forthcoming in 2020).


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

BUSTED: National Archives caught doctoring exhibit to remove criticism of President Trump from women

Published

on

The National Archives were caught editing an artifact from the Trump administration to remove criticism of the president, according to a bombshell new report in The Washington Post.

The newspaper reported on a "large color photograph" at the National Archives exhibit marking the centennial of women's suffrage.

"The 49-by-69-inch photograph is a powerful display. Viewed from one perspective, it shows the 2017 march. Viewed from another angle, it shifts to show a 1913 black-and-white image of a women’s suffrage march also on Pennsylvania Avenue. The display links momentous demonstrations for women’s rights more than a century apart on the same stretch of pavement. But a closer look reveals a different story," the newspaper noted.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Dershowitz is running a ‘bizarro defense’ of Trump: Harvard Law colleague says ‘Alan is just completely wacko’

Published

on

Two of the most famous names associated with Harvard Law School had competing appearances on MSNBC on Friday.

It began when Alan Dershowitz, a professor emeritus, was interviewed MSNBC chief legal correspondent Ari Melber about his new role officially representing President Donald Trump during the Senate impeachment trial.

Dershowitz claimed that neither abuse of power nor obstruction of Congress count as "high crimes" under the constitution.

Professor Alan Dershowitz, who has also been associated with Harvard Law for five decades, was asked about Dershowitz's argument during an interview with Chris Hayes.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Why was Lev Parnas wearing a ‘Presidential Service Badge’ awarded to troops who serve in the White House?

Published

on

Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman posted a fascinating update about a photo of impeachment figure Lev Parnas.

The photo shows Igor Fruman -- who, like Parnas, is under federal indictment -- sitting closely next to Rudy Giuliani and Parnas.

Haber said a source informed her that in the picture, Parnas can be seen wearing a "Presidential Service Badge," linking to the Wikipedia entry on the pin.

"The Presidential Service Badge (PSB) is an identification badge of the United States Armed Forces which is awarded to members of the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Coast Guard as well as other members of the Uniformed Services, such as the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps and the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, who serve as full-time military staff to the President of the United States," Wikipedia explained.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image