Trump Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

@Montmorency:

Nice counter with the excerpt from Jemmy Madison.

I think it underscores, however, just how serious a breach of the trust of office is required for impeachment to be a valid option. Madison is indicating that there should be a mechanism for removal, but that reversing a decision of the electorate should only be done in the most grievous instances.

1. "Losing capacity after appointment." I think this would best be handled via the procedures outlined in the 25th. Despite the claims of his detractors, I have yet to see valid evidence that Trump is certifiably unstable or incapable of making a decision. A decision making style that emphasizes "going with your gut" is not a sign of incapacity.

2. "pervert [her or] his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression." First off, I just LOVE the phrasing on that. While I know that some of his detractors label him as racist etc. regarding Muslims and Latinos, I have not seen evidence of Trump's seeking to oppress any citizen's religious or civil rights. He has been adamant is his efforts to curtail illegal immigration which he views as an economic threat and he has been seeking ways to limit potential terrorists from entering the country. So far, his efforts have been ham-handed and have been blocked by the courts in many cases -- part of the reason we have the checks and balances in place -- but there is no evidence that the Trump administration is centered on graft or dedicated to racism and oppression.

3. "betray [her or] his trust to foreign powers." In the instance of the Trump campaign, it is becoming clear that the Russians were trying to play social media games and other influence strategies that would benefit Trump. In addition, members of the Trump campaign clearly met with persons who were connected to (and potentially in the indirect employ of) the Russians in order to obtain information that could be used to damage H. Clinton's campaign. I have yet to see evidence that Trump himself made any "deals" for support from Russia or encouraged his campaign staffers to do the same. Absent that direct participation, which would have given Putin leverage over him and met this Madisonian provision, I do not see anything impeachable here -- only evidence that calls into question the quality of the campaigns leadership staff. I note, however, that evidence that does meet this standard may exist. If that is found to be the case, it would rise to the level of impeachability in my eyes.

You go on to list a laundry list of the shortcomings and ethically challenged actions undertaken by Trump and/or his administration. You are, of course, well aware that other administrations from both parties have engaged in many of these same behaviors in the past without anyone suggesting they rose to the level of impeachability. Many of these political maneuverings -- hiring supporters who are less than ideally qualified for the position hired -- are almost legion and date to the founding of the republic. It's the less savory side of politics. I don't discount that these show poor leadership and weak ethics. I believe they constitute good reason to campaign against him and vote against him and his supporters in upcoming elections. I only question whether they rise to impeachability. I do not see an administration that has become the embodiment of "peculation or oppression," only a bad administration. As to the firing of Comey, that sort of thing tends to take care of itself. As Nixon found with his firing of Cox, the removal of someone leading an investigation at the President does NOT create a chilling effect on the investigation, but the reverse of same.



The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was blatant partisan politics. He was a Democrat heading a Republican-dominated government and they wanted him out. The articles under which he was impeached were laughably short of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" noted in the constitution itself or even the tripartite list you noted in Madison's explication.

The near impeachment of Richard Nixon started out somewhat partisan -- the liberal press corps had always loathed the man -- but evidence developed over time that clearly indicated that the President was aware of, and either authorized or participated in, cover up efforts and payoffs that were designed prevent the connection of his administration to crimes committed against Nixon's political opposition by persons affiliated with his re-election campaign. Partisanship faded in the face of evidence, and Nixon resigned in advance of what would have been his impeachment on AT LEAST one of the articles brought forward.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton was largely blatant partisan politics. Republicans had just regained power in the House after nearly 40 years and were almost immediately outmaneuvered politically by Clinton. Clinton got the HoR to shoulder the blame for a government shutdown. When the Starr investigation revealed evidence of perjury for the purpose of obstructing justice, the GOP pounced. While technically impeachable in that there was evidence that the President had very likely perjured himself before a grand jury -- only the most benign parsing of the language would suggest otherwise in the face of evidence uncovered thereafter -- NONE of Clinton's transgressions were connected with harming the political opposition or otherwise crossing the threshold of perverting the office. The GOP were idiots to push this and it was rightly quashed in the Senate.

You mention the Rich pardon as an impeachable offense. The timing of the pardon, of course, made this action 'unimpeachable' in a literal sense. I agree with you that that pardon was more of a breach of trust of the office than any of the crap with which they tried to officially impeach Bill Clinton. It was easily his most obvious abuse of power.