Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California has become the most strident voice in Congress calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump. Even before Trump was inaugurated, she proclaimed she would work for that to happen, and has followed through on her words.
But the word has probably been used without many really understanding its history and meaning. Many “democratic” nations have some form of impeachment for top officials. The most recent high-profile impeachment came in April of last year when Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies impeached the Brazilian president, Dilma Rouseff, and the Federal Senate convicted her, and removed her from office.
Most states have impeachment for high government officials. In 2009, Rod Blagojevich, twice elected governor of Illinois, was impeached by the Illinois House of Representatives (114-1, with 3 abstentions) and convicted by the Illinois Senate with a vote of 59-0. He was not only removed from office, but he was barred from ever holding public office in Illinois again.
Only 19 actual impeachments have been held in the federal system, although many more have been threatened and initiated. Of these, 15 were of federal judges, two of presidents, one Cabinet secretary and one U. S. Senator. Only 8 were convicted, all federal judges.
Our Constitution allows for impeachment for high government officials for “Treason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. These charges were to begin in the House of Representatives, and have been the subject of much discussion. Treason and bribery are quite explicit, but what constitutes the “high crimes and misdemeanors”? In 1970, then Minority Leader of the U. S. House, Gerald Ford, Republican of Michigan, claimed they were whatever the House decided at the moment.
Two Presidents have been impeached, each with charges brought by a House dominated by the opposition party to the President. In 1868, Andrew Johnson, the only Democratic Senator from a southern state, Tennessee, who did not agree with secession and stayed with the Union, was placed on the 1864 ticket with Abraham Lincoln. Upon Lincoln’s death, he became the 17th President. Arrayed against him were the Radical Republicans who wanted a harsh Reconstruction imposed on the rebel states, while he wanted a more lenient treatment of his fellow southerners. When Johnson openly defied a law passed by Congress, he was impeached. His trial before the Senate, with a 2/3 majority needed for conviction, ended with a 35-19 vote against him, an insufficient to prevent him from serving out his term at President.
Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, essentially over his affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. With the House in Republican hands, he had two charges against him, but was acquitted 45-55 on one and 50-50 vote on the other. Lying in a federal deposition and obstruction of justice were the two indictments against him.
Of the other 61 impeachment resolutions introduced in the House, only one has garnered much publicity — that of Richard Nixon in 1974. However, the articles of impeachment had not been passed when he resigned, effectively, on August 9, 1974. Most vote counters believed the House would easily have voted to impeach, as it was heavily Democratic, and with the Senate also in Democrat hands, it was thought that Nixon could count on only 28 Senators, and maybe fewer, who would vote to acquit. Seeing the inevitable outcome, Nixon quit the field.
Now we come to the present push for Donald Trump’s impeachment. One Democratic Representative, Al Green of Texas, claims he is working on a resolution to impeach the president. Since treason and bribery seem to be out of the question, it boils down to the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Even given Gerald Ford’s assertion in 1970, most observers of the political scene believe that an actual crime has to be present in order to move forward with impeachment.
No one yet has been able to pinpoint any felony committed by Trump. Even in the Russian probe, high-level Democratic legislators admit that no proof of such collusion is even hinted at in the investigation. In addition, if the “collusion” between the Russians and the Trump campaign team, and even the candidate, occurred before the election, how does impeachment affect non-officials? If a crime was committed before January 20, 2017, that would be a matter for the civil courts, not subject to the impeachment process.
Obstruction of justice is charged by some Dems because Trump fired James Comey, director of the FBI. According to the Democrats this was done to stop the investigation into the Russian connection, but no one disputes the President’s right to dismiss Comey. And even those who were angered by the firing admit that this investigation will not be affected by the termination of the head of the agency, since other agents, not Comey, are doing the actual investigation.
A lot of noise has been made by those on the left by those who hate the President. Democrats and liberals have done all they can to thwart Trump’s agenda, delaying appointments, and laying charges often found to be frivolous. Every Tweet has been criticized, his children have come under scrutiny and investigated for their alleged misdeeds.
One problem for the nation is the time taken away from issues more important facing the Congress. In the age before instant electronic news and social media, the impeachment of Andrew Johnson dragged on for two months. I remember well that Nixon’s march toward his own impeachment clogged the airwaves for most of the late spring and summer of 1974. More recently, Bill Clinton’s experience with the process took up months of late 1998 and early 1999.
Add to the problem of the insufficient evidence of any crimes is the political obstacles faced. An impeachment resolution must receive 218 of the 435 Representatives in the House. With the Republicans holding 231 seats, it is hard to envision 24 of them deserting their party and President to get to that threshhold. And even if that were to happen, with Republicans holding a 52-48 edge in the Senate, 19 Senators, over a third of the total GOP contingent, would have to side with the 46 Democrats and 2 independents to remove Trump from office. In the unlikely event they succeeded, who would take his place? Mike Pence, who is even more conservative that Trump — politically, socially and religiously. What on earth would the successful impeachment of Trump gain them?
So it seems to me that the only purpose of the impeachment bleating by the likes of Waters and Green is to get their names in the paper and their faces on the 6 o’clock news. It serves no useful purpose, and I wonder if many of those who voted for them and their ilk really sent them to Washington to pursue this will-o-the-wisp.
If either were to ask my opinion, I would just say to them, “Get a life. Start governing!”