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

Proposition DD: Let the Bets Flow

On November 5 th , 2019, one of the two measures placed on the ballot in Colorado was Proposition DD, giving the electorate a referendum on the legality of sports betting within the state; it also would impose a tax upon the net revenue of those establishments accepting such bets, the majority of which would provide funding for the Colorado Water Plan and the remainder of which would be used to regulate sports betting and provide services for gambling addiction. Since 1992, gambling on the outcome of most sporting events had been outlawed nationally under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA, though with the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association , this Act was deemed unconstitutional, and state legislatures became free to legislate regarding sports betting and its legality. Proposition DD was put to a public ballot under the provisions of the TABOR amendment to the Colorado Constitution, a ‘Taxpayer Bill of Rights’ ...

The Proponents of Proposition DD

Proposition DD and its proponents One of the most significant and noteworthy results of the recent elections in Colorado was the passing of Proposition DD. A legislative proposition is a proposal placed on the ballot by the state legislature itself. The legislature in Denver referred the measure with House Bill 1327 during the spring season, with easy bipartisan support. [1] The proposition however did not receive such widespread support from the public, only narrowly passing, and being too close to call on election night. This is illustrated below. [2] The passage of Proposition DD legalised gambling on sports events, beginning in six months’ time; making Colorado the nineteenth state to legalise sports betting. Colorado’s seventeen casino operators will be eligible to apply for licenses for both physical and online sportsbooks, with the Colorado Division of Gaming being tasked to regulate the market. [3] ‘Yes on Proposition DD’ raised about $2.83 million for ca...

Immigration Visas and Polarization

Megan King  The story I decided to investigate in National News is , “ Federal Judges Block Trump Policy Targeting Legal Immigrants on Public Benefits ” by Claire Hansen demonstrates how difficult the policymaking procedure can be. In regard to the separations of powers, this ideology does give each branch equal representation, which in this case was to block a new policy. In this situation, three judges filed lawsuits because the new policy the Government was going to implement that visas could be denied if they think that immigrants who are going to use public benefits. It is known as the “public charge” policy which is basically, “any individual who is deemed likely to accept a benefit is considered a public charger” which was just another attempt from the Trump Administration desiring to stop immigration (Hansen). There has already been policies in place that set up circumstances that Immigration Courts and the Government have set up to deny immigration residence just in...