Impeachable Offenses

"Impeach the m...f..."
Representative Rashida Tlaib

The impeachment trial of President Trump is going on right now even though the charges brought by the Democratic managers seem flimsy at best. There are no charges of treason or bribery and no “high crimes and misdemeanors” have been alleged. The President has merely been accused of misuse of power, and obstruction of the efforts of the House of Representatives to impeach him.

Almost since day one of his Presidency, they have been looking for a reason to remove him from office. In May of 2017, Representative Maxine Waters of California called for his impeachment. On January 4 of 2019, long before the phone call to the Ukraine, newly elected Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib claimed that “we’re going to impeach the m----- f-----. “

Now it appears as if the Democrats have really lowered the bar for what constitutes offenses worthy of impeachment. Using their new standards, a number of actions of President Obama and his administrators were far more serious and worthy of prosecution.

Benghazi cover-up. President Obama’s response to the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi and the murder of our ambassador and other Americans would certainly call for an impeachment investigation under the new standards. The attack itself could have happened under any President but the cover-up that followed certainly was designed for President Obama’s political advantage. Republican Mitt Romney was running the President hard in the 2012 election campaign but didn’t press the Benghazi issue, much less call for his impeachment.

Speaking about the election of 2012, on an open mike President Obama asked the President of Russia not to make any waves before the election, and promised that he would have a freer hand to cut a deal with Russia after his re-election. Under the new standards, that would certainly have warranted an impeachment process. He asked a favor that would help him win re-election.

Resisting Congressional Subpoenas. During the Obama administration, Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly resisted Congressional subpoenas to the point where he was actually held in contempt of Congress. He was head of the Justice department but the Mueller investigation, and the Inspector General’s report clearly showed that it was one of the most partisan Justice departments in history.

Misuse of Power. Two agencies in the Justice department, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), formerly renowned for their probity and non-partisanship, became arms of the President and his party. The IRS targeted conservative political groups and organizations, and delayed applications for tax-exempt status. Only now are we learning of the shocking partisanship and dirty tricks of the FBI leaders appointed by President Obama.

Bribery. The Democrats have dropped charges of bribery against President Trump for lack of evidence. Nevertheless, under the new standards President Obama might have been impeached for bribery when he offered special deals to Senators and their States in order to secure passage of the Affordable Care Act early in his administration. In the old days, that would have been called politics but now, who knows?

Assassination. President Trump has been blamed for the targeted killing of an Iranian general in Iraq. Some have called it a violation of the law against political assassinations. When President Obama took out the notorious Osama bin Laden, the terrorist was not a military target and he presented no “imminent” danger. Where was the outcry then? Democrats lauded the President and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who for once enjoyed bi-partisan support. All agreed that it was good riddance.

In all of the above instances, no one ever suggested that President Obama be impeached. He had virulent opponents and critics but no one claimed that he was guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that might initiate an impeachment investigation. With the impeachment of President Trump, the Democrats have opened a window that in the future could come back to haunt them and the country.

###

COMMENT:

TD from CT offers these excellent comments.

When the Founders debated impeachment at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, they considered making maladministration an impeachable offence. After debate they decided this standard was dangerous and would bring a huge number of frivolous impeachments, so the idea was voted down.

You wrote: Now it appears as if the Democrats have really lowered the bar for what constitutes offenses worthy of impeachment. Yes, but what they are really doing is resurrecting the previously rejected standard of maladministration. They are redefining the legal standard of impeachment without amending the Constitution, on the fly. Is Trump guilty of maladministration? I'd say yes. And so what?

Here's my take on the rest:

Article Zero (the Russia investigation) - If the Mueller investigation had led to an article of impeachment, it should have been dismissed by the Senate upon arrival for lack of evidence.

Article One (Abuse of Power) - To my mind this one might have something to it. We certainly don't want Presidents directing criminal investigations for partisan reasons. The issue here is that it has to be proved that there was no probable cause for an investigation, we can't just assume it. I see zero effort being made to prove that an investigation of Hunter Biden was undeserved - after all, pursuing criminal investigations that [especially] involve foreign governments is part of a President's legal obligations, notwithstanding how crass or bungled (maladministered?) a President's execution of that obligation might be. Prove it to me and I'll support a conviction Until then...

Article Two (Obstruction of Congress) - Sorry, to my mind this is highly conditional. If any president is impeached for reasons other than high crimes and misdemeanors, then he or she would have a legal right to maintain the impeachment was unconstitutional and that obstruction was justified. Convict on Article One, and a conviction on Article Two can be justified. The reverse (convict on Two and not One) is totally indefensible.

Article Three (a fictional charge of illegal withholding of appropriated money to Ukraine) - There is at least one Federal statute that would seem to support this, and which was cited in that GAO report that said Trump broke the law. So, where is Article Three? Alan Dershowitz has opined that the application of such a statute to a foreign aid appropriation would be unconstitutional, since foreign affairs are almost entirely a Presidential responsibility. Also, it would seem that there are statutory exceptions, since such appropriations have been withheld by past Presidents. So it stands to reason that either the GAO report is a lie and the Democrats know it would not survive Senate scrutiny and are using it just to blow more smoke.. ###