RE: Buckle your seatbelts, everyone....
09-27-2019, 06:59 PM (This post was last modified: 09-27-2019, 07:05 PM by SilverFang01.)
09-27-2019, 06:59 PM (This post was last modified: 09-27-2019, 07:05 PM by SilverFang01.)
It occurs to me that people may have some questions about the impeachment proceedings.
[Disclaimer: I am not a Lawyer. This is based on some research I did by following Wikipedia citations, my own copy of the Federalists Papers, and several online sources.]
So, the impeachment thing. First, see this Congressional Research Service Report, which is the most recent guidance on federal impeachment.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf
1. It is useful at this point to keep in mind we only have 3 Presidential impeachments, two of which have gone to trial in the Senate. That's a very small sample size.
Interesting fact, tho. Johnson was tried for impeachment in 1868, the election year. The fact that the American people would vote in November did not prevent the Senate from voting on impeachment in March.
2. Impeachment is for "Treason, Bribery, High Crimes and Misdemeanors." It is entirely undefined what any of this means. It is not settled that "Treason" in this context must mean the same as the definition of "Treason against the United States" as defined in Article III (although the consensus here is it probably is). This is in part because it is unclear whether impeachment is a criminal trial or something else.
The general consensus is "something else." Federal impeachment is a unique facet of the Constitution. While it draws on certain historical precedent, it should be recalled that the idea of rendering the Executive formally accountable to the legislative branch through a right of removal was one of the experiments of the Constitution. Notably, Hamilton in the Federalist Papers describes impeachment as reserved for those guilty of "abuse or violation of some public trust." (Federalist 65). Jefferson, in fact, argued that impeachment was a legitimate form of removal when he sought to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase for "partisan rulings." This view lost the fight historically, which is a good thing for the overall stability of the country.
Accordingly, acts of the President may be grounds for impeachment WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTS CONSTITUTE A PROSECUTABLE OFFENSE. This is a vital point to keep in mind, as it will be obscured quite a bit. Mind you, given the gravity of impeachment, we have generally tried to limit to matters that could lead to criminal prosecution, but not always.
Another important take away from this is that if you hear people saying that because this is a trial the standard is the same as for a criminal trial -- that is nonsense. For one thing, that isn't the standard for indictment, which is the equivalent of what the House does. If this were a criminal trial, then the House would vote to try an impeachment on probable cause.
Likewise, there is no clear legal standard by which to judge whether any of the acts of President Trump rise to the level of an impeachable offense. There is certainly plenty of grist for the mill. Which brings me to the next point.
3. Unlike the Independent counsel's report, which is bounded by a specific referral and limited to specific acts, investigation into possible impeachment is wide-ranging. All Presidential acts and conduct are fair game. So while the event that pushed a majority of Dems over the edge to impeachment may have been the allegations that Trump attempted to coerce the President of the Ukraine into launching a corruption investigation against Joe Biden's son Hunter, the investigation is not limited to this specific matter. Everything from the emoluments clause accusation to allegations of obstruction of justice to lying about an affair with Stormy Daniels is fair game for consideration.
[Disclaimer: I am not a Lawyer. This is based on some research I did by following Wikipedia citations, my own copy of the Federalists Papers, and several online sources.]
So, the impeachment thing. First, see this Congressional Research Service Report, which is the most recent guidance on federal impeachment.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf
1. It is useful at this point to keep in mind we only have 3 Presidential impeachments, two of which have gone to trial in the Senate. That's a very small sample size.
Interesting fact, tho. Johnson was tried for impeachment in 1868, the election year. The fact that the American people would vote in November did not prevent the Senate from voting on impeachment in March.
2. Impeachment is for "Treason, Bribery, High Crimes and Misdemeanors." It is entirely undefined what any of this means. It is not settled that "Treason" in this context must mean the same as the definition of "Treason against the United States" as defined in Article III (although the consensus here is it probably is). This is in part because it is unclear whether impeachment is a criminal trial or something else.
The general consensus is "something else." Federal impeachment is a unique facet of the Constitution. While it draws on certain historical precedent, it should be recalled that the idea of rendering the Executive formally accountable to the legislative branch through a right of removal was one of the experiments of the Constitution. Notably, Hamilton in the Federalist Papers describes impeachment as reserved for those guilty of "abuse or violation of some public trust." (Federalist 65). Jefferson, in fact, argued that impeachment was a legitimate form of removal when he sought to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase for "partisan rulings." This view lost the fight historically, which is a good thing for the overall stability of the country.
Accordingly, acts of the President may be grounds for impeachment WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTS CONSTITUTE A PROSECUTABLE OFFENSE. This is a vital point to keep in mind, as it will be obscured quite a bit. Mind you, given the gravity of impeachment, we have generally tried to limit to matters that could lead to criminal prosecution, but not always.
Another important take away from this is that if you hear people saying that because this is a trial the standard is the same as for a criminal trial -- that is nonsense. For one thing, that isn't the standard for indictment, which is the equivalent of what the House does. If this were a criminal trial, then the House would vote to try an impeachment on probable cause.
Likewise, there is no clear legal standard by which to judge whether any of the acts of President Trump rise to the level of an impeachable offense. There is certainly plenty of grist for the mill. Which brings me to the next point.
3. Unlike the Independent counsel's report, which is bounded by a specific referral and limited to specific acts, investigation into possible impeachment is wide-ranging. All Presidential acts and conduct are fair game. So while the event that pushed a majority of Dems over the edge to impeachment may have been the allegations that Trump attempted to coerce the President of the Ukraine into launching a corruption investigation against Joe Biden's son Hunter, the investigation is not limited to this specific matter. Everything from the emoluments clause accusation to allegations of obstruction of justice to lying about an affair with Stormy Daniels is fair game for consideration.
“We can never undo what we have done. We can never go back in time. We write history with our decisions and our actions. But we also write history with our responses to those actions. We can leave the pain and the damage in our wake, unattended, or we can do the work of acknowledging and fixing, to whatever extent possible, the harm that we have caused.”
— On Repentance and Repair: Making Amends in an Unapologetic World by Danya Ruttenberg
— On Repentance and Repair: Making Amends in an Unapologetic World by Danya Ruttenberg