To Impeach Or Not To Impeach - Look At Some Of The Basic Questions

Yesterday I replaced this post with a video of then Rep. Lindsey Graham urging the Senate to convict Bill Clinton and explaining the broad array of wrongdoings covered by impeachment.
So let me go back to what I was originally working on.

I've been trying to identify the arguments for and against impeachment.


1.  Has he committed impeachable offenses?     

It seems to me that the Mueller Report offers us enough instances of obstruction of justice that it's clear that there are impeachable offenses.  Committing criminal acts is a much higher standard than is required for impeachment anyway.  If you listen to the Graham tape, lies, perjury, obstructing justice are all fair game.  Clinton had sexual harassment charges and then fighting those charges, which Graham called obstruction of justice.  Trump has various women he's paid to sign NDA's.  He's got unsavory money ties to Russians through Deutsche Bank and directly.  There's all the tales Michael Cohen told.  There's emolument clause issues based on foreign governments patronizing Trump properties.  The list goes on and on.

2.  What is an impeachable offense?

From Article 2, Section IV, we get the terms:  "Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."  Again, listen too Graham.  Trump's got lots of acts that fit into the definition he gave of high crimes at the Clinton impeachment.

Some Impeachment Facts

A.  Impeachment is just an indictment for a president.  In non-presidential situations when there appears o be enough evidence to indicate a person has committed a crime, he's indicted.  Then it goes to trial.  In this case there is plenty of evidence.  But impeachment is the process of looking at the evidence and deciding to indict.  Setting up an impeachment process doesn't mean he will be impeached, just that the evidence will be examined.  And the House will have the power to get all the relevant evidence, things the administration is refusing to share.

B.  Then if the House decides to impeach, it goes to the Senate for the trial.

I'd note that there have been three presidential impeachments in American history - Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton.  Johnson and Clinton were acquitted and Nixon resigned before he could be convicted.  So, no president has ever been successfully tried for impeachment.

If there is a lot of evidence of impeachable acts, it's up to the House to investigate and make the President accountable.  It's true that prosecutors also weigh in the likelihood of conviction.  They don't want to lose a case because there isn't enough evidence.  But an impeachable president does more damage than most un-indicted but likely guilty criminals.

3.  Is impeachment politically feasible?

This seems to be the key question Democrats are debating, at least as the media portray things.  So let's look at it closely

A.  That could mean, if the House impeaches him, would the Senate convict?  If Trump and whoever else can keep the Senate Republicans under control like they have so far, the answer would be 'no.'  But if the American public were exposed to hearings that discussed the Mueller findings in detail, not to mention other issues, there's no telling how popular opinion would go.  So far, relatively few people have read to Report.  I confess to having read only some parts of it.  But I did read carefully most of  Seth Abramson's Proof of Collusion which spells out much of what's in the Report.  (A followup book, Proof of Conspiracy comes out soon.

Click Here For The Mueller Report.

The Report is 182 pages plus  Appendix A - Letter of Appointment of Special Counsel (1page) Appendix B - Glossary (14 pages)  Appendix C - Written Questions to be answered by President Trump (12 pages) and Responses from President Trump (12 pages) (total 23 pages)  Appendix D - SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE TRANSFERRED, REFERRED, AND COMPLETED CASES (6 pages)   There's a total of 226 pages, some blank, some redacted, some just lists.   If you read just ten pages a day,  you could read the whole report by June 23.

B.  Would losing the impeachment battle in the Senate weaken the Democrats before the 2020 election?   Depends on what the American people hear and see of the impeachment hearings and the Senate trial.  And unless Netflix makes a Mueller Report series, without an impeachment, most Americans will never know exactly what's in the Report and how damning it is.  (See Box above with link to report and ten page a day suggestion.)

C.  Will the Democrats be blasted for wasting time on impeachment instead of passing legislation?  The Republicans will accuse them of not passing any legislation no matter what they do.  Very little substantive legislation has been passed in the last few sessions of Congress anyway.  This isn't a reason not to impeach.

D.  Is it too early to start an impeachment because there isn't enough evidence?  Well, part of what you do at an impeachment is gather evidence.  Impeachment won't be quick not matter when it starts.  One could argue that starting now would mean that Congress will be ready with the evidence they need in a timely manner.  If they wait until Nancy Pelosi determines the time is right, then

E.  If the Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, Israelis and others interfere with the election in 2020, impeachment (unless successful) won't matter anyway unless the Democrats are able to fight such interference.  If they don't impeach, they won't have near as much evidence of election tampering than if they impeach and subpoena the evidence.

F.  Balancing doing what's right with doing what's expedient.  Sometimes we make ethical compromises because of the practical consequences.  It's a basic philosophical dilemma.  One could argue that it's a hard decision to make.

There is plenty of evidence that the president has committed impeachable acts. It's Congress' duty to keep the president accountable.  So in a politically neutral world, impeaching the president is the moral and correct thing to do.

But should the Democrats do that if it would guarantee they would lose the next election?  If we could know that for sure, I'd say probably not.

But there's no way of knowing for sure that impeachment would cost the election.  In a situation of uncertainty, then the only right and moral decision is to do the right thing - impeach.   I would argue that, as happened with Nixon, the public airing of all of Trump's wrong doings would help push a comfortable majority over the edge into agreeing that impeachment was the right thing.  Not impeaching would convince the cynical non-voters that they were right to not vote.

G.  Whatever the Democrats do, they have to work hard to make sure that the elections aren't lost because of foreign and domestic propaganda, voter suppression and tampering:

• They expose and prevent and counteract foreign propaganda on social media and elsewhere, as well as far right attacks (like the Swift-Boat attacks on John Kerry.)
• They expose and prevent voter suppression, vote tampering, and hacking of voting machines.  And when these things occur, they are all over them gathering proof and refusing to concede until it is clear the vote was clean.