Donald Trump Impeachment Watch

The word impeachment is being increasingly used. What grounds could there be for impeachment? How good are they? Let’s start a watch list.

I will be evaluating the arguments from many sides. The Progressives are already convinced that Trump is the embodiment of evil. The arguments for impeachment need to make sense to those who are not already convinced, or they will simply interpret this as (further) evidence that Progressives think it’s OK to obtain their political ends by any means at their disposal, fair or foul, so everyone else had better do the same. If the latter, impeachment will push us further toward anarchy.

Conduct Unbecoming

We have a President who does not uphold the norms and standards we are used to. He said he wouldn’t when he was still campaigning. He expressed his contempt for those norms and standards. He was as good as his word on this subject.

Many of Trump’s actions are simply repellent to people who believe in American governmental institutions. But those who distrust those institutions applaud Trump’s actions for the same reasons. When David Gergen goes on television, stands in front of his Kennedy School of Government wallpaper, and talks about how outrageous the latest Trump communication is, these people smile inside. It’s validation to them that Trump is on the right track. Republican and Democratic Presidents come and go, and David Gergen goes from one position of influence to another. The Trump supporters hate that. They want people in government who do not share the Kennedy School orthodoxy.

The Founders never put a clause in Article II stating, “The President shall not let his little head do the thinking for his big head.” I doubt they even thought of it. They likely would have believed it would be a sad day for the Republic if we needed such guidance. But here we are.

There are several problems with impeachment on grounds of conduct unbecoming to a President:

• There is no standard. Like obscenity, you’ll know it when you see it.
• It is an ex post facto standard. It was not discussed prior to the election. Well, except by Hillary Clinton. Which brings us to:
• It is a standard for institutionalizing a specific set of political beliefs. Anyone with a contrary political agenda who attempts to act on that agenda will, by definition, display conduct unbecoming to public office.

For these reasons, I am not considering impeachment grounds that my analysis reduces to conduct unbecoming.

Trump retains his core support because he is willing to color outside the lines. They don’t see our system of government having been working for them. If you get someone who does what other Presidents do, you will get what other Presidents got.

Congress and the President

I am taking the position that Congress has the right to direct the President to do some things and refrain from doing others. Congress is the premier branch of government. The executive branch exists to execute the will of Congress.

Congress has largely abdicated this responsibility, and the last time the Supreme Court invalidated a law because it was an excessive delegation of responsibility was in 1935. So, within the living memory of most Americans, Congress has failed to impose its will. Since nature abhors a vacuum, successive Presidents have moved further and further into the void. However, this does not mean that Congress cannot direct the President, just that it doesn’t.

Therefore, I maintain that Congress could direct the President through joint resolutions which would not be open to veto. If the President were to act in defiance of these resolutions, this in itself would be an impeachable offense.

The Tom Steyer List of Offenses

Tom Steyer, who is a hedge fund manager, philanthropist, environmentalist and Progressive activist and fundraiser, has been paying out of his own pocket for a national television campaign calling for impeachment of Donald Trump for almost a year now. I have not signed on and do not think I could, most importantly because I don’t trust Steyer and his agenda. Nevertheless, he spells out some charges on his website, and I am including them in the discussion because he has at least supported them with some arguments.

Obstructing Justice

This is centered around Trump’s handling of James Comey and Michael Flynn, including Trump’s statements after the fact, in which he has taken multiple, mutually inconsistent positions.

However, Alan Dershowitz has maintained that, because Comey was an employee of the executive, Trump was within his Constitutional authority to direct Comey’s investigative efforts and to fire Comey when Trump chose to do so.

The charge of obstructing justice is rather murky. I expect that, if the House impeaches Trump, it will lay on one or more items of obstruction of justice. But this is not a good centerpiece, because of both Constitutional and practical issues.

Violating the Emoluments Clause of the US Constitution

Steyer argues that Trump violated the Emoluments Clause by continuing to actively operate his businesses while serving as President. There is some merit to this charge, and I expect it will show up even more importantly soon.

This charge will not be the centerpiece, but it will figure. The keys are what those businesses were doing and who had undue influence through those businesses. But we don’t have the full story yet.

Steyer also states:

And every time he goes to golf at a Trump property, he funnels taxpayer money into his family business—violating the Domestic Emoluments Clause.

I can see the Trumpkins pushing back hard on this one. They see Trump as a successful entrepreneur. They won’t see this as a hanging offense. Why shouldn’t he be able to go play golf on his own property when he wants to? Whose property did Obama play golf on? What connections did that owner have with Obama or the Democrats? What benefit did the owner derive?

Maybe the government should make a nine-hole course in Lafayette Park.

Conspiring with Others to Commit Crimes Against the United States, and Attempting to Conceal Those Violations

This is about the meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya and the offer of dirt on Hillary Clinton. Too many people don’t buy the idea that this was wrong. It has been out there, rehashed over and over.

We suspect that this is an attempt to support a claim that Donald Trump stole the election from Hillary Clinton. In fact, Clinton made too many mistakes. She failed to mobilize the Democratic core constituencies in Philadelphia, Detroit and Milwaukee. Calling Trump voters “deplorables” wasn’t too bright, either. The contest should never have been that close.

This is a non-starter for impeachment purposes.

Advocating Violence and Undermining Equal Protection Under the Law

Steyer’s net charge is:

Trump has demonstrated a pattern of behavior amounting to advocating violence, undercutting equal protection, and, as a result, failing basic Constitutional duties.

Steyer was careful to stick to the most egregious examples of Trump’s behavior in this pattern, such as his behavior after Charlottesville. Nevertheless, we know that many people who support Trump feel that they would not be the beneficiaries of equal protection under a regime Steyer would support.

Writing in 1979, Theodore Lowi wrote that the trend in government was “To apply the Fourteenth Amendment of the 1787 Constitution as a natural-law defense of all substantive and procedural rights.” This trend has continued, although many of us want the Fourteenth Amendment balanced by the Tenth.

Furthermore, the real issue in Steyer’s description is with Trump’s communications, not his actions. This is conduct unbecoming.

Abusing the Pardon Power

Steyer’s argument is about Trump’s pardon of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for his contempt of court conviction.

Here is the relevant paragraph of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Paragragh 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Arpaio was not impeached. Nowhere does it say that Trump does not have the authority to pardon Arpaio. So Trump did not exceed his Constitutional Authority.

Steyer doesn’t like that Trump pardoned Arpaio. OK, I don’t like that Trump pardoned Arpaio, either. But that is a political issue, not misconduct. At most, it is conduct unbecoming.

Engaging in Conduct that Grossly Endangers the Peace and Security of the United States

There are two main ideas here. I will cite examples of each.

High-ranking administration officials involved in foreign affairs have signaled that Trump does not have the capacity to make informed decisions in the event of a military crisis.

This boils down to conduct unbecoming. I have already discussed this in the example of John Brennan.

Even worse, his actions could spark a needless confrontation stemming from misunderstanding or miscalculation.

Steyer clearly doesn’t like Trump’s foreign policy direction. Given what we know about Steyer, I would not expect otherwise. Steyer is seeking to nullify an election. This is a non-starter.

Directing Law Enforcement to Investigate and Prosecute Political Adversaries for Improper and Unjustifiable Purposes

After we discuss the IRS Targeting Scandal under President Obama, we can consider this. But we won’t discuss it. The brave seekers of truth in journalism are already working to shove it down the memory hole. However, the IRS did issue an apology.

Undermining the Freedom of the Press

We know that Jefferson, among others had a reputation for upholding freedom of the press:

The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them.

But Jefferson wrote that before he became President. When he was on the receiving end of the journalists’ attentions, he said, “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper.”

Trump is exploiting, not creating, distrust in the press. The mainstream media was hostile to the Tea Party long before Trump became a candidate. Trevor Butterworth documented how journalists looked down their nose at the Tea Party. Journalists denied the legitimacy of the Tea Party members as citizens. A professor interviewed in The New York Times claimed they were “frightening.” Matt Taibbi described them as an “assortment of nativist freaks, village idiots and Internet Hitlers,” boiling with “incoherent resentment.” And let us not forget Anderson Cooper with his “teabaggers” quips.

Many journalists have run down their credit with voters who supported the Tea Party. Now, they need to be heard by those voters. Why should those voters trust them now?

Yes, Trump exploits these conditions for his own enlargement. No, it is not helpful to the country. How about a joint resolution from Congress demanding that he desist?

Cruelly and Unconstitutionally Imprisoning Children and their Families

This is all about the separation of families detained for illegally immigrating to this country from or through Mexico.

I know people who support his implementation of these policies. They don’t like people coming here from Latin America in large numbers. Their attitude is, “If you don’t to be separated from your children, don’t come here illegally.”

We can have an extended discussion as to the merits of this approach and whether or not it will succeed as designed. Personally, I find too much nativism in this thinking, but that is not the point. The point is that this issue is a legitimate policy dispute.

Steyer offers no support for his claim of unconstitutionality. So, in the end, it is another issue on which he and others disagree with Trump and hope to nullify an election.

Summary

If I were a Republican member of the House, there is nothing here that I would want to hang my political career on. There is no call to conscience, nothing for me to take back to angry constituents and offer a compelling explanation.

Steyer has offered nothing to call those of us who do not share his political agenda to action. His arguments are only meaningful to those who are drinking the Progressive Kool-Aid. For the rest of us, they are insufficient.