The-Ave.US

We elect our presidents, but Congress can fire them.

There’s no gray area or ambiguity between Congress removing a bad president or leaving that to voters. It’s a clear dichotomy: Voters should decide on issues like fitness for office, personality, and policies, whereas Congress has the authority and responsibility to fire a public official who has engaged in serious misconduct.

That’s how our system was designed to work.

The next question is, what conduct warrants removal from office? Here again, there is no mystery. The Founding Fathers made their intentions clear: Impeachable conduct consists of “putting personal interests ahead of public service” (paraphrasing Vice President Pence, when he was a congressman). And what the Founding Fathers feared most was foreign interference in our democracy (“Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump,” by Neal Katyal, p. 40).

In other words, Trump is not only accused of an impeachable offense, but of the penultimate impeachable offense: Soliciting a foreign government to help him win re-election.

The evidence is overwhelming that Trump sought to give himself an advantage in the 2020 election by soliciting a foreign government’s interference in that election. His goal was to eliminate Joe Biden from the 2020 Democratic nomination race by smearing him with a false taint of corruption, to make it easier for him to win re-election.

He didn’t ask Ukraine’s president to actually investigate the Bidens (probably because he knew such an investigation was baseless and wouldn’t turn up anything); tellingly, he only wanted him to announce an investigation. Nothing more was required of President Zelensky to secure a White House meeting and U.S. military aid.

This warrants and requires Trump’s removal from office because, as Katyal wrote, “President Trump wasn’t only willing to cheat to win an election; he was willing to ask a foreign power to help him do it.” This is a problem because it would leave the president vulnerable to blackmail by the foreign power, should they want something from him in the future.

It’s immaterial that Trump didn’t get away with it, because he will do it again, if he remains in office. In fact, within days after the Ukraine scheme became public knowledge, he stood in front of TV cameras and asked China to investigate the Bidens.

This occurred in 2016, too: Robert Mueller’s investigation uncovered 140 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. There’s also the famous incident of Trump publicly asking Russia “if you’re listening” to release Hillary Clinton’s stolen e-mails, which Russia did through Wikileaks the next day. While this past conduct may not be impeachable per se — it wasn’t official misconduct because Trump wasn’t yet elected — it demonstrates a pattern of behavior likely to continue if Trump remains in office.

With the 2020 election now less than a year away, why not just wait until the election, and let the people resolve this? Because the conduct at issue, if it continues to occur, will undermine the integrity of the election itself. It would no longer be a fair and democratic election, and Trump’s continuing conduct putting the election itself at risk, we can’t count on the electoral process to protect our democracy.

Demolishing the Republican arguments against removing Trump is easy. The facts of what occurred are indisputable; everything in the whistleblower complaint has been confirmed by the witnesses who testified under oath in the House Intelligence Committee hearings. When asked if there was a quid pro quo, Gordon Sondland, the Trump-appointed ambassador tapped to help carry out the scheme, answered “yes.” (In fact there were two quid pro quos mentioned in the July 25, 2019 phone call: To get a White House meeting and military aid, Zelensky had to announce two investigations, one of the Bidens, the other involving a debunked claim that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind the foreign meddling in our 2016 election.)

Republicans are simply wrong when they argue that Trump didn’t commit bribery within the meaning of the Impeachment Clause. “Bribery,” in that context, doesn’t refer to any criminal statute; bribery didn’t become a federal crime until 1853, more than 75 years after the Framers wrote bribery into the Constitution as grounds for impeaching and removing a federal official. Their understanding of the term was grounded in the common law of the time, and refers to a public official offering or soliciting something of value in return for something of value.

Trump’s now-abandoned claim that he was acting in a proper official capacity when he asked Ukraine to root out corruption from their government was spurious on its face. Anyone with common sense would see that Trump knew he was up to no good. A president conducting legitimate foreign policy doesn’t use a private citizen (i.e., Giuliani) to go around normal diplomatic channels, hide the records, and tell the witnesses to shut up. Legitimate foreign policy doesn’t need to be covered up.

But the proof of illegitimate purpose goes beyond logical inference. The word “corruption” was never mentioned in the July 25 phone call. The Bidens, Burisma, and Crowd Strike were. If combatting corruption in Ukraine was really Trump’s objective, he would have insisted on Zelensky’s government conducting an actual investigation, not just announcing one, but he didn’t. As Sondland testified, the “favor” Trump asked for was only a public announcement, and he would have given Zelensky the two things Zelensky wanted — a White House meeting and the military aid — without any investigation. As Katyal and others have pointed out, Trump didn’t care if Ukraine investigated anything, and Trump’s real intentions are also belied by his insistence on a public announcement of these investigations: real law enforcement investigations aren’t announced, because that tips off the targets that they’re being investigated.

If you watched the House Judiciary Committee hearing, when four constitutional scholars testified about the history of the Impeachment Clause and the intent of the Framers, you may have listened to the Republicans’ sole witness, Professor Jonathan Turley, explain why he doesn’t think the bar for impeachment has been satisfied. There are two serious flaws in Turley’s argument. First, it’s premised on the notion that proof of a crime is required for impeachment, but that’s not true. Second, Turley bases his conclusions on what he thinks the Impeachment Clause should say, not what it actually says; as one media commentator pointed out, what Turley really is arguing for is amending the Constitution. That topic is not relevant to whether Trump has committed one or more impeachable offenses under the Constitution in its present form.

This impeachment battle is not about whether you like Trump, voted for him, or prefer someone else or have policy differences with him. It’s not about the GOP’s incredible hypocrisy in refusing to impeach Trump for attempting to bribe a foreign government (Ukraine) to interfere in our 2020 election to aid his re-election, after impeaching Bill Clinton for lying about a consensual sexual affair. Those are matters to be settled at the ballot box.

Impeaching Trump is about upholding the fundamental principles of our system of government, which are:

1. The awesome powers of the presidency are to be used for the public good, not the private gain of the person occupying the office;
2. Betraying that trust is a firing offense; and
3. Elections should not be overturned for political reasons, but Congress has a duty and responsibility to protect us from further betrayal of public trust.

If Congress doesn’t fire Donald Trump, our system of checks and balances will have failed, and there will be nothing left to stop him from even more egregious betrayals of the public interest. As Katyal says, “President Trump has clearly stated that he will not stop asking foreign powers to help him win elections — unless we remove him. Which is why we must” (id., p.102).

Postscript:

I’ve never done this before, but given the gravity of the topic and how mistaken the comment is on multiple points, I feel it advisable for the benefit of readers to respond to the arguments made by the commenter.

“The case is weak.”

No, for reasons explained above this case involves what the Framers of the Constitution considered the most serious “high crime” of all — inviting foreign interference in our democracy — and there is overwhelming evidence of Trump’s personal involvement and guilt. Of the four efforts to impeach an American president, this is the most compelling case for impeachment and removal of all.

“and more than one democrat has stated we must do this because we cannot beat Trump at the polling place.”

First of all, when referring to members of the Democratic Party, let’s capitalize “Democrat” as a simple matter of respect. Also, to avoid confusion because “democrat” and “Democrat” have different meanings. Now for that remark attributed here to “more than one democrat,” but apparently referring to remarks by Rep. Al Green (D-TX) that have been taken out of context by rightwing spinners. It was actually Donald Trump, not Al Green, who said that. See this Politifact article for details.

In any case, Rep. Green is only one congressman, and it takes a House majority (i.e., 218 votes) to approve Articles of Impeachment; so whatever the motives of an individual congressman may be (although, in this case, Trump has mischaracterized Green’s motives), his individual motives are irrelevant. Moveover, it makes no sense that Democrats would impeach Trump because “we cannot beat [him] at the polling place” when current polls show 54% of voters say they will vote against Trump in 2020.

“Incumbants [sic] are hard to beat which is why Nancy can relax while 31 members of her party in the house get to sweat.”

Judging by the 40 House seats the GOP lost in 2018, and dozens more GOP congressmen and women who are choosing not to run for re-election in 2020, incumbents aren’t all that hard to beat. It’s true that Nancy Pelosi’s seat is pretty safe (she was re-elected in 2018 with 86.8% of the vote), and that some Democratic House members represent swing districts that Republicans potentially could win in 2020 (the exact number is subject to debate), but all of this is irrelevant to the issue of impeachment, which is a Constitutional process to determine whether the president has engaged in conduct (“treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”) that warrants his removal from office. People can, of course, debate whether he has; I posted this article to argue that he has.

“Lets just say Biden manages to win the Democratic nomination and beats Pence, but the House goes Republican. Shouldn’t the House impeach the President for actions when he was VP”

Not according to Katyal’s (and many other Constitutional scholars’) interpretation of the Impeachment Clause, because they would argue the Impeachment Clause only applies to conduct while in office. This, Katyal says, is why Trump can’t (or at least shouldn’t) be impeached for his alleged collusion with Russia during the campaign, before he became president.

“and his own words form a stronger case than the one against Trump.”

The comment offers no specificity about what the commenter believes Biden did wrong while Vice President, and I decline to guess, but I will say the case against Trump is very strong.

“The rules of politics (which at times really is blood sport) demand the Republicans get some payback.”

This comment must be condemned in the strongest terms. If it were stated as an observation, I would agree that American politics gets rough at times, and sometimes involves “payback” (e.g., “if you vote against my earmark, I’ll vote against yours”). But to endorse the notion, as this comment appears to, that if Trump is impeached on proper grounds, Republicans should impeach the next Democratic president as “payback,” is to undercut the very foundation of our democracy and civilization itself. The whole point of having constitutional government and rule of law is to civilize politics and avoid having to live under caveman rules.

“It is obvious to reasonable people that Trump could be impeached, and it is likely to happen”

I interpret this to mean that reasonable people can conclude that there are enough Democratic votes in the House to approve Articles of Impeachment against Trump, and at this time, that appears to be true.

“as the beastie is out of the garden shed where it is best fast asleep, but now roused demands fulfillment”

Comparing the House impeachment process to a sleeping beast that wakes up hungry is absurd on its face. Speaker Pelosi resisted calls from some members of her own caucus to initiate an impeachment inquiry for nearly three years. It was Trump’s conduct in Ukraine that forced her hand. This was a new development, and the Democrats acted on it promptly. Also fairly, responsibly, methodically, and thoughtfully, one might add.

“Like a prosecutor who has forgotten ethics and legal sense the House Democrats have forgotten what every new prosecutor is told not to take a case to trial there is no chance of getting a conviction from the jury.”

An impeachment proceeding is not a criminal prosecution or other type of legal proceeding. It is an inquiry by the legislative branch of government, under its oversight role, into whether a public official should be removed from office for misconduct enumerated in the Constitution. Legal rules do not apply. But let’s address the assertion by the commenter about how prosecutorial decisions are made. That is not an accurate characterization of how prosecutors operate. They operate according to their legal training, the laws, and the “best practices” developed by the offices they work for. Prosecutors are expected to consider the sufficiency of evidence, not the odds of getting a jury to return a guilty verdict. Anything less is a disservice to the victims and public. This couldn’t be done anyway, because juries are unpredictable.

“The current Senate is not going to remove Trump, and I would put money on it if asked…a gentlemanly social wager or a mule skinner wager. The votes are not there and the narrative goes over to McConnell and the Republicans who can dispose of the matter fast or slow.”

This is irrelevant. If Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct, he should be impeached. If he hasn’t, he shouldn’t be. Simple as that. What the Senate might do should not enter into it, and — it is clear — won’t. But I wouldn’t be so careless with my money if I were you. Things can change, and they can change overnight.

Mr. Kaytal, in his book, spoke to the question, “Is there actually any hope of 67 senators really voting to impeach President Trump?” (Note this question is phrased as a reader asked it; a more correct phrasing would be “voting to remove” the president.) His answer in full, and I think it’s a good one:

“Before Republicans decided to impeach President Nixon, they were vehemently opposed to the idea of impeaching him. Lawrence Hogan, the first Republican in Congress to announce support for impeachment, didn’t do so until right before the House Judiciary Committee was set to vote — only two weeks before President Nixon resigned. This stuff moves fast. Until its final hours, the investigation into Watergate had been highly unpopular with the American public. Even after the Saturday Night Massacre, only 38 percent of Americans supported removing President Nixon from office. But as more citizens began to understand how he had abused his power, public support for impeachment began to increase — and, in turn, so did support for impeachment among Republicans in Congress. While public support for impeachment never topped 57 percent, Republican senator Barry Goldwater — alongside House Republican leader John Jacob Rhodes and Senator Hugh Scott — eventually paid a visit to the White House and told President Nixon he had no choice but to resign. They did so despite the fact that over 50 percent of Republicans approved of his performance at the time. This story by no means guarantees that President Trump will meet the same fate, but it is proof that sometimes Congress really does put country before party. There are, after all, at least some similarities between President Nixon’s impeachment and President Trump’s. Lawrence Hogan, for example, had a son, who, naturally, he named Larry. Now the governor of Maryland, Larry Hogan, a Republican, has channeled his courage and called for impeachment proceedings against Trump. Perhaps Congress will follow the lead of a Lawrence Hogan once again.” (Kaytal, id., pp. 137-138.)

In other words, Kaytal is drawing on history to speculate that perhaps Republicans will come around and “put country before party” again. We won’t know until the House and Senate votes are actually taken. But in any case, those votes should be guided by what is right for our country, not crass calculations of potential outcomes.

Finally, I see nothing unethical about how the House Democrats are conducting the impeachment proceedings against President Trump. On the other hand, Trump’s behavior has been consistently and highly unethical, and he is accused of nothing less than putting his own selfish interest in getting re-elected above America’s national security interests involving Ukraine.

“With a simple vote to toss the matter”

Possible, but unlikely. Even if McConnell and the Senate Republicans refuse to convict Trump, despite the clear evidence pointing to his guilt, they won’t want to do so peremptorily, because that would make them look even worse than they’ll look if they vote to acquit him despite the overwhelming evidence of his guilt.

“or go impeach to Joe Biden.”

How do you impeach Biden, when he holds no public office? And even if he was currently a public official, the Senate could not impeach him, only the House can do that.

“What will the optics of Joe being served by US Marsall’s [sic] on the campaign trail.”

I don’t think he’s worried about that happening. If it did happen, I think most voters would see that as an incredible abuse of power by the Trump administration; and, if anything, the public would react with sympathy to Joe.

“Maybe Pelosi sent a memo to Joe with love that his race is done”

This hasn’t happened, and won’t happen, no matter what happens. Pelosi is too canny a politician to take sides in the Democratic nomination race, and will support the Democratic nominee whoever it is.

“or Joe never got the message”

It’s pretty clear that, as of today, Joe Biden thinks he’s very much still in the 2020 race.

“though if this type of thing is impeachable Joe should be getting the same treatment”

What Trump did is not only impeachable, it’s what the Founding Fathers feared most, i.e. foreign involvement in our elections and governance, and is the penultimate impeachable offense. Joe Biden has not done anything similar. There is zero evidence that he solicited or sought to coerce a foreign government to help him win an election, or covered up such an effort, or sought to obstruct Congress in investigating such an effort. There is overwhelming evidence that Trump has done all of those things.

“And more fat guys asking him certain questions about Ukraind, Hunter…”

Here I’ll quote Katyal’s response to the question, “Is what Hunter Biden did wrong?”

“Absolutely. Hunter Biden had no real experience in the energy sector, which made him wholly unqualified to sit on the board of Burisma. The only logical reason the company could have had for appointed him was his ties to Vice President Biden. This kind of nepotism isn’t only wrong; it is a potential danger to our country, since it makes it easier for foreign powers to buy influence. The thing is: it’s not illegal. That’s why Hunter Biden didn’t hide his involvement with Burisma. And it’s why President Trump’s children — Ivanka, Don Jr., and Eric — continue to conduct business around the world with impunity. As does President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who works in the White House. No politician, form either party, should allow a foreign power to conduct this kind of influence peddling with their family members. End of story.” (Katyal, id., pp. 132-133)

I’m not wholly satisfied with this answer. It’s irrelevant that President Trump’s children have overseas business ties, too. I agree with Katyal that even though Hunter Biden’s employment by Burisma wasn’t illegal, it was wrong, because it invites influence peddling by foreign governments. But let’s not lose sight of the context. Joe Biden didn’t do this, his son did, and absent evidence that Joe helped his son get the Burisma position — and there’s no such evidence that I’m aware of — this seems like something that was beyond his control and not of his doing. Anyone with children knows that parents can’t control everything their children do, especially adult children. This isn’t the only issue with Hunter Biden; Joe’s surviving son has a checkered history, which was well known to the general public long before the Burisma controversy came into the spotlight. But a prodigal child can happen to any parent. Trump isn’t being impeached for anything his children did; he’s under scrutiny for what he has done. Bottom line, Burisma isn’t relevant to the impeachment inquiry because Trump’s quid pro quo involving Ukraine had nothing to do with fighting corruption and everything to do with helping Trump win the 2020 election by eliminating Joe Biden from the race.

“and Joe seems to be claiming some kind of executive privilege..separation of powers and the like.”

I have no idea what the commenter is talking about here.

“Of course the fact that it is Congress bribing Ukraine with big bucks has been overlooked”

Congress approved funding for military aid to Ukraine, a U.S. ally under attack by Russia, as a matter of legitimate U.S. foreign policy — to help a friend against an adversary. Moreover, Congress did not condition the aid on Ukraine doing anything for the U.S. in return, other than spending the money for its intended purposes — there was no “quid pro quo” (but there certainly was when Trump held that aid hostage for help from Ukraine with his re-election campaign). And this expenditure was for a public, not private, purpose — to promote the interests of the United States. To characterize that as “bribing Ukraine” is the commenter’s imagination running amok. Nor has Congress’ role in the Ukraine military aid affair been “overlooked;” in fact, thwarting congressional approval of this aid for personal political purposes is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry. It calls forth Congress’ exercise of its oversight role.

“though it is places like Raytheon making the big bucks.”

This has nothing to do with anything.

“Good old industrial military complex.”

Say what you will about defense contracts and the “military-industrial complex” (using Eisenhower’s phrase), if I were a Ukrainian warfighter facing Russian tanks in the Dombass region, I’d much rather have American anti-tank missiles to throw at them than rocks.

“Of course just maybe some Democratic contender can actually win an election against Trump.”

Yeah, just maybe. Presidential elections are unpredictable (see, e.g., the 2016 election, which even Trump himself didn’t expect to win), but that does seem possible.

“Or maybe some Democratic contenders need to boost their campaign with a cougar in their campaign car or other transport.”

It was a tiger, not a cougar.

“It is going to be a fun holiday season.”

I’d guess for some people more than others. Children opening their presents under the tree, for example.

“No federal budget with a Senate fully engaged in a trial.”

As I recall, the Continuing Resolution expires Dec. 20, so this could get interesting. One thing you can be confident of, though, is that the Democrats in Congress will oppose a government shutdown because of the impeachment proceedings or any other reason.

“Maybe throw in a”

This is how the comment, unedited, ends. I want it to be clear this is how it came from the commenter, and that the comment has not been edited by myself or anyone else connected with this blog. Nothing has been left out from the original comment this blog received; it’s all here.