In the nearly 250 years of the American republic, no President of the United States has been removed from office by way of impeachment, the provision provided in the Constitution for the removal from office of "all civil Officers of the United States" on "Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." It has almost happened three times. Two instances resulted in acquittals after trials in the Senate, and the third instance never got as far as a trial; it was resolved through the resignation of a President who tactfully noted in his resignation speech that he had lost his "political base."
Removing an elected President from office is not something anyone should relish. It requires, however justly, the thwarting of the will of the people in what is hoped to have been a free and fair electoral process. On another level, on which the President is viewed not merely as the leader of the national government but also the head of state, it is the closest thing the Constitution provides for regicide with due process. Impeachment is a process with no political winners. Yes, it is a legal process that gives Congress a procedural path for removing a chief executive who has acted in such a way that he or she can no longer be trusted with the constitutional requirement to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. But it is also an occasion for national embarrassment. Were a President to be actually removed from office through this process, the American people would have to confront an unpleasant reality: they elected a crook. In the meantime, on the political front, the process would serve to even further polarize partisan sentiment in a deeply polarized populace.
So there is a strong case for treating the impeachment option with respect to a presidency gone badly wrong as the fire alarm box of truly last resort. One breaks the glass of that box not in malice or in anger, but with the sorrow that comes from a love of one's country and its standing in the world, as well as a knowing and utter lack of other options.
Which brings me, unsurprisingly, to the subject of D****** T****. But it also inevitably brings me to the subject of the current partisan split between the two houses of Congress.
When the 2018 election produced a strong Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, and a narrow Republican majority in the Senate, it created the obvious good news/bad news divide for the American people, perhaps the one that many of them wanted at this moment. Each house could check the impulses of the other that voters hated, but neither of them were likely to work together on any legislation that each of them might actually pass--to say nothing of the ability to survive a presidential veto. In fact, you need look no further than this past week for an example of that dynamic actually playing out: the House and Senate passed a resolution designed to nullify T****'s declaration of a "national emergency" in connection with refugees at the southern border, which led directly to the first veto of his presidency.
And that kumbayah moment on the part of a divided Congress was more about protecting its constitutional prerogative to spend than it was about accomplishing something in the political arena. In other words, it was a marginally hopeful sign that even a divided Congress could respond to an existential emergency on behalf of constitutional government. Which is more than even I expected out of this Congress, along with many others. The hope that most of us had was the the Democratic House would use its powers of oversight and investigation to begin the formal process of impeaching the most impeachable President in the history of the republic.
I don't say that lightly, and I certainly don't enjoy saying it at all. Nobody wanted this presidency less than I did (with the possible exception of T**** himself). But, as I have said on more than one occasion, I have followed his public and private shenanigans for nearly 40 years, and nobody has been less surprised than I have been by the level of disgrace he has brought to his office and our nation.
By way of illustration, let's single out the two specific crimes mentioned in the constitutional language relative to impeachment: treason, and bribery. I'll take them in reverse order.
Before he even took the oath of office, T**** made it clear that he had absolutely no intention of separating himself from his world-wide business interests during his Administration. He even floated the unbelievably ridiculous idea that he could serve on a part-time basis, running the country from the Trump Organization in New York while only occasionally coming to Washington. He has, since then, disdained the idea that money could be a corrupting influence on a public official, arguing that people with money were the kind of "successful" people that the government needed.
Spoken with the kind of confidence that comes from someone who has always inherited or borrowed money, but never truly earned it. Never mind. The point here is this: T**** was telling all of us, up front, that he was going to make no distinctions between the private and public sectors as President. So far as he was concerned, he was free to mix them up as much as he wanted. Or, to put it another way, he was willing to be bought if it served his personal interests, even if it harmed those of the U.S..
And some of those who were willing to do the buying also happened to be among those who led nations whose interests are not always allied with our own. There is Saudi Arabia, for example, which provided most of the terrorists for the 9/11 attacks, and which executed a journalist who was an employee of a newspaper T**** hates and an lawful permanent resident of this county--doing so, in fact, with little more than a verbal slap on the wrist from Trump. And then, most notoriously, there is Russia, where T**** has had business dealings for decades--dealings that, by his son's own admission, include loans from Russian lenders. Effectively, that means loans from Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, and a former KGB agent who runs the country on behalf of Russian mobsters with the same ruthlessness he displayed on behalf of the former Soviet government. And equally effectively, it means that T**** is indebted to the Russian mob. Yet he finds no irony or shame in trying to tout that relationship as an asset.
There you have it, folks. Evidence of both bribery and treason. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Perhaps not. Probable cause? To quote someone who came a lot closer to being Vice President than she should have? You betcha. Or, to use an oft-used Maya Angelou quote: when someone tells you who they are, believe them. And is Congress--or, at least, the House--using its powers to delve into the probably cause it has had now for some time?
Unfortunately, not far enough.
Nancy Pelosi, in her second go-round as House Speaker, has decided that it isn't politically correct to pursue the question of impeachment, at least for the time being. She has stated that the House will not move forward in any impeachment process until there is a bipartisan consensus that it should be done. Otherwise, in her words, "he's just not worth it."
He's just not worth it.
Well, never mind whether he's worth it for the moment. Maybe that would matter if we were just concerned with the question of feeding T****'s martyr complex, or the martyr complex of the T**** base, or the T**** media. Maybe that would matter if we just didn't want to help him continue using his presidency to get ratings, or clicks. But it doesn't. Because there's that nagging question of whether WE are worth it. We, the People, the ones who allegedly ordained and established the Constitution to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Don't we deserve as a people to know beyond any doubt that we have a President who is working for us, and not his business interests? Hasn't the Constitution provided you with a tool for removing a President if he or she has been found to be guilty of treason and bribery, two things T**** may have found a way to mix? And didn't the vote on the phony "national emergency" at the border suggest that even the current crop of Republicans can be persuaded to reach across the proverbial aisle in the face of an existential threat to our form of government?
Madame Speaker, the answer to all of those questions is yes. And you owe it, as a constitutional officer and a leader in a co-equal branch of a tripartite government, to not only have the courage that this moment requires, but to impart some of that courage to the wavering Democrats in districts that T**** won in 2016. Let them talk to some of the veterans of the Watergate era, if necessary, about the importance of stepping out of one's comfort zone when the moment requires it. It is all too easy to pass the proverbial buck when it seems possible to do so--to Robert Mueller, to state law enforcement agencies, to the media, to all of them at once. None of those parties has the specific duty to pursue the removal of a President who has broken the law and betrayed the trust of the American people. You do.
When a house is burning down, you don't hope and pray that the water pipes will burst in time to contain the damage. You call the fire fighters. Madame Speaker, our constitutional house is burning down. You and your colleagues are the fire fighters. Your tools are not axes and hoses, but your authority as members of Congress and your political ability to build a credible case. That always involves taking risks, and no one should take those risks likely. But, as an attorney, I can tell you can cases do not always build themselves; more often than not, someone has to build them, even when the prospects of doing so are daunting. Perhaps they are daunting here. But going forward is absolutely necessary.
So do it, Madam Speaker. This is not a moment for calculation, but a moment for resolute action. To paraphrase Richard Nixon, who resigned as President rather than face an impeachment trial, and as he once said in the context of law enforcement, you have the tools. Do the job.
No comments:
Post a Comment