Skip to main content

On Impeachment and Trump


On Impeachment and Trump

Not since the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998 has the process of Presidential impeachment been more relevant or timely, as proceedings begin in earnest against President Donald Trump for alleged wrongdoing regarding Ukraine. The process of removal of a sitting US President requires an impeachment by simple majority in the House of Representatives and a conviction by two-thirds of the Senate. Only two Presidents have been impeached in the history of the United States have been impeached, first Andrew Johnson in 1868 for dismissing is secretary of war, then Bill Clinton in 1998 for lying under oath; though neither were convicted by the Senate. President Richard Nixon also faced impeachment proceedings over the Watergate scandal in 1974, though in the face of an almost-guaranteed conviction, he resigned before he could be impeached. The situation facing Donald Trump is arguably greater than those crises that shook the White Houses of 1974 and 1998, and could well result in the unprecedented removal of a sitting US President.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states that the President may be removed from office on impeachment and conviction for ‘Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes or Misdemeanours’, the first two of which are not problematic, and have easily determinable legal meanings. Adler et al. cite the lack of clarity in the phrase ‘other high crimes and misdemeanours’ as a complication to the process of impeachment, as Congress form the decision as to what can constitute a ‘high crime or misdemeanour’, and their designations may therefore change from year to year (Adler et al., ‘Impeachment’). Impeachment has been called by many a political, not a legal decision, as it serves to hold to account the people’s elected representatives for their misdoings whilst in office, beyond the purview of their position (Adler et al.; Victor). With this as a starting point, Victor goes on to outline six criteria that might make a particular action by a President an impeachable offence in what she describes as a ‘hot take’ on impeachment in the wake of the announcement proceedings were to begin against President Trump.

There are a number of incidents that could be used as avenues of inquiry towards impeachment, such as the accusation of collusion with Russia during the 2016 Presidential campaign, the allegation Trump obstructed justice during the investigation into the aforementioned allegation (Victor). Most notably however would be the allegation from a whistle-blower that Trump might have utilised his position as President to orchestrate an investigation into political rival Joe Biden by the Ukrainian Prime Minister, through a quid pro quo withholding of financial aid. Victor’s take-away is Trump’s accused wrongdoings regarding Ukraine fulfil all six of her criteria for an impeachable offence, more so than Clinton’s lying under oath, or Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate scandal; this is particularly shocking as Nixon resigned before any action could be taken against him, as he likely knew the inevitability of his conviction, should he have been tried, whereas Trump appears unyielding in the face of what could be the first Senate conviction of a sitting President. The problem with any analysis on Trump’s impeachment proceedings is the blatant and unavoidable lack of a representative sample on which to base our assessments. With impeachment only having occurred twice in history, under unique circumstances each time, we remain in uncharted territory throughout this process; nobody knows what is to come, other than the procedural certainties imposed by the Constitution.


Source: Gallup Polling (McCarthy)




The final stage, in the aftermath of a possible impeachment in the Democrat-held House of Representatives, will be decided by the Republican Senate, and though President Trump has been no friend to many in his Congressional party, his popular support might well decide the outcome of any trial, as many in the party seeking reelection would not wish to disenchant their Republican supporters. The required two thirds Senate majority for conviction would require over a third of Republican senators to vote in opposition of their own party’s de facto leader and likely 2020 nominee, assuming all other Senators vote to convict. One might presume Senators to vote along party lines with few dissenters, as the Democrats did in 1999 in their verdict on Bill Clinton’s trial, it is however, not unheard of that support for impeachment might transcend partisan divisions, as Nixon was informed he would only have had the support of 15 Senators, despite his party holding 40 seats (Black, 978). Further, we might expect Trump to lose in the Senate, should proceedings get that far, due to his very public arguing with Republicans on Capitol Hill, and owing to Gallup polling showing a recent bump in public support for impeachment, so Senators are less likely to have to support the President for re-election; The Washington Post asserts that the last time public support for impeachment was higher was just days before Nixon’s resignation (Bump).

In closing, the impeachment proceedings brought against President Trump are unprecedented in nature and will most likely mar his legacy, as they did with Nixon’s and to a lesser extent, Clinton’s. His brash and uncouth style of politics might provide him great support among his base, though they cannot have helped his support on the Hill, which he will desperately need in the coming months; when the Senate, almost inevitably, decides their verdict, he will have to hope to retain at least a modicum of support among his own party, or he might make history in the worst possible way for a President.



Sources:


Adler, E. S. et al. (2000) The United States Congress. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Black, C. (2007) Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full. New York: PublicAffairs Books.

Bump, P. (2019, October 16) Only once has Gallup seen more support for removing a president. Nixon was gone four days later. The Washington Post. Retrieved from <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/16/only-once-has-gallup-seen-more-support-removing-president-nixon-was-gone-four-days-later/> (accessed 10/16/2019)

McCarthy, J. (2019, October 16) Congress Approval, Support for Impeaching Trump Both Up. Retrieved from <https://news.gallup.com/poll/267491/congress-approval-support-impeaching-trump.aspx> (accessed 10/16/2019)



Victor, J. N. (2019, September 24). Why Impeachment is Starting Now, In One Chart. Retrieved from <https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/why-impeachment-is-starting-now-in-one-chart> (accessed 10/16/2019)

Comments

  1. I really enjoyed your argument that we are in unprecedented territory as we have never removed a sitting president from office. As you lay out all the scandals that have involved the Trump White House, I wonder if including the Russia probe outcomes (leaving no determination on obstruction of justice) with these affairs with Ukraine would hurt the Democrats when trying to impeach, as it might appear that they have been trying to oust Trump from the beginning. I also wonder how timing will play into impeachment: the longer this inquiry lasts, I assume the more it becomes likely that the public’s interest will wane and they will want to focus more on 2020 and other issues.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your post, I appreciated the general information provided about Trump's impeachment situation as well as the brief history into other impeachment proceedings that have happened in the U.S. I have not personally looked into all the ins-and-outs of Trumps situation so I am not completely educated on how/why Trump might be in hot water with this impeachment proceeding. However, from what I know and what I understand, I think it would possibly be a mistake for the Democrats to try to impeach for 2 main reasons. First, we already so close to the next presidential election and I fear an attempt to impeach might rally Trump's base and work within his favor in the upcoming election. And second, I fear in the eyes of the American citizenry that the act of impeachment might be seen as a purely political move on behalf of the Democrats which will like cause a reactionary movement against Democrats and result in them losing the house.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Ballot Initiative in Colorado

    One of the most distinctive features of the legislative process in Colorado is the prevalence of the ballot initiative. In the election this November, voters had the opportunity to approve their own laws. One of these laws included a proposition that would legalize sports betting.     This is not the first time that voters have had the ability to make hugely influential decisions. Voters have voted to legalize marijuana. In Colorado, they even approve tax increases because of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, or TABOR. This means that, unlike in other states, Colorado voters have legislative power of their own.      One of these most recent initiatives involved sports betting. Colorado would legalize sports betting, but sports betting would be taxed. This revenue would be used to fund plans to address Colorado's water problem. However, according to the Colorado Sun, the money from sports betting will not generate any money to address these water iss...

TABOR & Proposition CC: Providing Context to Colorado's Tax Problem

Edward Baisley Prof. Matthew Hitt POLS 304 Dec. 2019 Blog Post 3 (TABOR and Proposition CC) Colorado's tax system is very unique in comparison to pretty much every other state in the U.S. Arguably the biggest aspect of the tax system that is unique is the amendment to the Colorado Constitution known as TABOR or the Tax Payers Bill of Rights. This amendment which was drafted into law in 1992, has many implications for Colorado's state and local governments. One of the main implications is that TABOR requires the state and local governments of Colorado to acquire voter approval before any tax increase can be implemented. Some other more less known implications are detailed by Denver Post author Anna Staver, she explains that TABOR: “ Limits how many tax dollars governments can keep … It’s called the TABOR cap, anything a government collects above the cap gets returned as a TABOR tax refund … (TABOR) Limits when lawmakers can ask voters to raise taxe...

The Flawed American Electoral System

A free and fair election is one that is inclusive to all of the population. A democratic state requires active citizen participation to ensure equal representation. The framers of the constitution originally wanted the United States government to only be governed by educated white men. It was not until 1920 that the 19th amendment was passed that allowed white females to vote in America. Then it was not until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that allowed African-Americans the right to vote freely. There were many amendments and reforms throughout history that has changed our election system. Different changes to state election process will ensure an equitable election system. This is a highly debated legislative issue that goes back and forth for the past decade and into the 2020 election. It is crucial for such a powerful and free country to protect its proud democratic values.  There are still issues with the American election systems. There are a lot of holes in represe...