Impeach & Convict Trump [View all]

[H2O Man]

“ Simple logic can point one way while wisdom may be in quite a different direction.”
Senator Robert Byrd



Question: Do you have time to read books? If so, which ones would you recommend?

Biden: My goodness, let's see. There's Mr Putin, by Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy. Insightful.”
VP Joe Biden in “Joe Biden: The Rolling Stone Interview”




How, one might ask, do these two apparently very different quotes relate directly to the impeachment of Donald Trump? More specifically, how do they relate to conversations that various Senators were having in the evening, after yesterday's hearings? Or are they only connected in the mind of an old man who posts confused essays on this forum?

The quote from Senator Byrd comes from the impeachment trial of President Clinton. While I disagreed with Byrd's belief that Clinton deserved to be impeached, I came to appreciate his reasoning for voting against impeachment in this case. Let's briefly consider what he meant in the above quote.

From the beginning, various experts have interpreted the Constitution differently. Hence, in such instances, it often has resulted in conflicts of interpretation being decided by the US Supreme Court. The court's decision define “constitutional law.” The majority of these important case tend to focus on those conflicts over the interpretation of the Bill of Rights. (There is a fascinating book, “The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding,” with contributions from serious scholars edited by Eugene Hickok, published by the University of Virginia in 1991, that everyone should read.)

There are few decisions concerning the impeachment of a president, because such events are rare. But thoughts on various legal scholars' opinions can be found, and should be studied. There is general agreement that offenses requiring impeachment in the House are outlined in the Federalist Papers # 65 and 66. In fact, any of the nonsense we hear from House republicans today can be rejected because they ignore those instructive opinions.

However, when tried in the Senate, those offenses can be viewed in a larger context. This context is intended to ask what is best for the nation? Sadly, at this point, it may wrongly expand to include what is best for the political party, and equally wrong, what is best for the individual's chance for re-election.

Potential impeachment and conviction can therefore be viewed, in theory, as weighing the damage of the offense to the disruption the impeachment process would cause the nation. Again, opinions will always vary in any individual case being considered. Let's start with the fairly recent example of Ronald Reagan and the Iran-Contra scandal. Without question, everyone knew this involved impeachable offenses. So why wasn't Reagan impeached?

A large number of republicans in DC believed – rightly of wrongly – that coming on the heels of Nixon, it would destabilize government institutions. A smaller number of republicans found common ground with the Democratic leadership on three things: Reagan was involved in negotiations on nuclear weapons with the USSR that would be disrupted by impeachment, that Reagan was half-way through his second term, and that he was highly unlikely to engage in such corrupt behavior again.

These are similar in nature to what Senator Byrd said about President Clinton. Byrd was furious with some of Clinton's behaviors. But he knew that convicting him in the Senate would be divisive, that Clinton was about half-way through his second term, and that he was unlikely to repeat his offense. Thus, while his logical choice was to vote to convict Clinton, he recognized that was not a wise choice.

I can say with 100% certainty that Senate republicans have been having these things researched, and have quoted Byrd in recent off-the-record conversations among themselves and with Democrats. They seek to justify voting to not convict Trump, and some are hoping that Democrats will accept the compromise of censure.

And this, my friends, brings us to Fiona Hill, her testimony yesterday, and her book on Putin. Even if we were not where we are today, I would strongly recommend her book (get the updated second edition). The book contains a deeply disturbing psychological profile of Putin, which is necessary to understand not only “what” Putin does, but more importantly, “why” he does things in the manner he does. In other words, the “why” is essential for predicting his future behaviors.

That exact same approach must be taken in evaluating the impeachment and possible conviction of Trump. Anything less than conviction and removal from office is unacceptable. First, he is not near the end of a second term, nor is there any evidence he would not repeat the same corrupt behaviors if he remains in office. Indeed, the timing of his Ukraine phone call, coming the day after Robert Mueller's public testimony, documents just the opposite. More, when asked about the possibility of similar calls with other foreign leaders, Fiona Hill responded by saying presidential privilege prevented her from answering. There are more. Many more.

In closing, I'd like to say that the Constitution provides for citizens to take an active role in determining the outcome. It's not only our elected officials who have the responsibility of studying and acting upon these issues. Over the holiday season, we can lobby Senators to let them know our thoughts on the need to convict and remove Trump. We can bombard the media with letters and phone calls. We can do this either as individuals, or in a coordinated group effort. And personally, there is no group of citizens I'd rather coordinate with than the DU community. Believe it or not, I've been giving this a lot of thought, and combined with others' ideas, I think we could have some fun.

Peace,
H2O Man