Just (im) Peachy
Those of you not in the U.S. and perhaps puzzled at trying to figure out what is going on over here with all this impeachment stuff, well, you're not alone. Impeaching a sitting president has only happened twice before and the upcoming "articles of impeachment" go-ahead vote would mark the third and follows virtually the same rules and methods used in the past two hearings* despite all the vitriol. Basically it will boil down to this: if the House has its hearings and votes to impeach, then Trump will be impeached; it then moves to the Senate to hold a "trial" to decide whether to actually remove him from office (this has never happened). Don't worry if you're puzzled as you're in good company as to how all of this proceeds since a President who is officially tried, impeached, and removed from office can NOT pardon himself of the charge but he can run again and be re-elected ...what?? But even more confusing is that if Trump IS removed from office during his current term, Vice-President Pence (who would now be President) could pardon Tump and all charges would be dropped. Okay, I am far and away not a Constitutional lawyer or even a student of any sort of legal background in such matters and my advice would be that there are plenty of well-researched sites out there that can explain the process; but get ready for a dizzying "circus" as many media outlets have termed it. Said The New Yorker: When Washington scandals involving foreign affairs become politically contested, a timeworn tactic by those accused of wrongdoing is to befuddle the public; the unfamiliar names, tangled chronologies, and ambiguous meetings offer a way to distract non-obsessives from the heart of the matter. Already, Trump and Giuliani, on Twitter and Fox News, have fogged the record by repeating falsehoods and conspiracy theories. The story we can discern so far, however, retains a certain straightforwardness, thanks to Trump’s lack of subtlety.
So how difficult is it to actually impeach a U.S. President? Some months ago, The Atlantic featured a story by senior editor Yoni Appelbaum that suggested what might constitute grounds for considering impeachment and its resulting effects on a sitting president. He started his piece with this: The electorate passes judgment on its presidents and their shortcomings every four years. But the Framers were concerned that a president could abuse his authority in ways that would undermine the democratic process and that could not wait to be addressed. So they created a mechanism for considering whether a president is subverting the rule of law or pursuing his own self-interest at the expense of the general welfare—in short, whether his continued tenure in office poses a threat to the republic. This mechanism is impeachment...Impeachment is a process, not an outcome, a rule-bound procedure for investigating a president, considering evidence, formulating charges, and deciding whether to continue on to trial...The protections of the process alone are formidable...The process of impeachment can also surface evidence. He goes on to point out that with Nixon (who resigned, rather than be impeached), his subpoenaed taped were considered so obviously altered that a Federal judge ordered the White House to release the originals which, unfortunately for Nixon, held the recordings that led to his demise. Trump, it would appear, has done the same by having his original recorded calls placed in an area highly inaccessible and generally reserved only for highly secret intelligence.
The main argument going forward with the impeachment hearings would appear to be based on 1) a possible obstruction of justice and 2) high crimes and misdemeanors. So what exactly are the definitions of those two phrases? It's a good question that is exposing what may be a less-than-clearly-defined definition. Said the same magazine in a later piece: One of the most compelling arguments about the meaning of those words is that the Framers, in Article II’s command that a president faithfully execute his office, imposed upon him fiduciary obligations. As the constitutional historian Robert Natelson explained in the Federalist Society Review, the “founding generation [understood] ‘high … Misdemeanors’ to mean ‘breach of fiduciary duty.’” Eighteenth-century lawyers instead used terms such as breach of trust—which describes the same thing. “Parliamentary articles of impeachment explicitly and repetitively described the accused conduct as a breach of trust,” Natelson argues, and 18th-century British legal commentators explained how impeachment for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was warranted for all sorts of noncriminal violations that were, in essence, fiduciary breaches. What?
So jump to the testimonies now appearing and Congress issuing subpoenas for that information. If you or I simply ignored those Congressional subpoenas we would likely answer that knock on the door and be greeted by U.S. Marshalls waiting with handcuffs (the penalty of such refusal is a misdemeanor that carries a possibility of a year in prison); but if you're in the White House, you can basically ignore all of that (and Trump has done so, even ordering his staff to also ignore the subpoenas). Congress then issues either a civil or a criminal "contempt" charge and from there it heads to the Department of Justice. Said the Congressional Research Service in explaining the process: The criminal contempt statute outlines the process by which the House or Senate may refer the non-compliant witness to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal prosecution. Under 2 U.S.C. § 194, once a committee reports the failure to comply with a subpoena to its parent body, the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House is directed to “certify[] the statement of facts...to the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” The statute does not expressly require approval of the contempt citation by the committee’s parent body, but both congressional practice and judicial decisions suggest that approval may be necessary. Although approval of a criminal contempt citation under § 194 appears to impose a mandatory duty on the U.S. Attorney to submit the violation to a grand jury, the executive branch has repeatedly asserted that it retains the discretion to determine whether to do so. A few days ago, the DOJ did just that and passed judgement that the subpoenas could indeed be ignored per Trump's order. Instead of checks & balances, it would appear to be checkmate.
So where does it go from here? Perhaps to the Federal courts? In a little-covered issue, the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell (currently battling off the moniker Moscow Mitch due to the deals he has made with Russian oligarchs to bring monies into his state, reported Rolling Stone, that and he being the only Congressional member to have a special liaison** speed grants of $78 million to his state), earlier changed the rules of the Senate to drop the review time for approving Federal judges from 30-hours to 2-hours (such judges are appointed for life and not subject to public review); this has resulted in an accelerated series of appointments, even leading to five such appointees who were ruled "unqualified" by the nonpartisan American Bar Association (some have never tried a case as an attorney in a courtroom). As to the Republican's version that the House is not following the rules in issuing subpoenas, the truth is that when they controlled the House and John Boehner was Speaker, they themselves changed the rules to the current ones. Hmm...so let's jump to another issue that's emerging and that is one of mental health.
Another piece in The Atlantic brought up the issue of the mental health of Trump, although psychiatric ethics laws prevent a qualified practitioner from issuing any such diagnosis without actually examining the person; this was followed by a more in-depth analysis by writer George Conway who cited such publications as the Federalist Papers and the Harvard Law Review. But a nonpartisan overview also appeared in The Conversation which said in part: ...how dangerous leaders rise to power. Their rise requires all three elements of a “toxic triangle” comprising leaders with dangerous psychological disorders, a core base of followers and an environment that is conducive to their rise to power. Such people do not rise simply on their own, but rather as part of a political party that adopts their values and enables their rise to power. This understanding of how pathological leaders emerge has profound implications for democracy. It suggests, for example, that mechanisms such as impeachment and the 25th amendment of the US constitution, which determines what to do if a president become unable to discharge their powers, fail to address the very real dangers that pathological leaders pose to democracy. Such mechanisms rely on the rogue leader being somewhat of an outlier and depend on the majority of legislators remaining wedded to democracy. However, because pathological leaders typically rise to power with the support of political parties and with mass support, this is often simply not the case.
A quick browse through the web will reveal sites that support any view, from conspiracy to white nationalist, from patriotic die-hard to "proven fallacies" (a quote from the comedian Norm Crosby who loved to base his routines on playing with grammar). But what is occurring in the U.S., both with social and corporate media, is revealing that the divide among the U.S. population still exists. For many, as long as the markets and the economy continue to do well much can be "forgiven," or can it? With lead restrictions being removed and factories again being allowed to dump toxic pollutants into rivers, such environmental decisions will affect far more than people just living near such areas in the U.S. And what's happening in our Congress only shows what has happened before throughout our history as the party in power changes the rules then grumbles and gripes about it when they lose power and the same rules are enforced by the other party. In today's circus of a world, it would seem that only one real decision-maker remains and it is that of the people voting. Voted in or voted out, impeached or not, what or who makes the rules will have to be decided by the voters...whether the attitudes and deeply engrained beliefs of the people also change may have to wait a bit longer. By the way, did I mention that Congress still allows any sitting President to have war powers, with or without Congress' or the people's say? Yikes...
*NPR reporter Lisa Desjardin explained a bit more about how the current hearings both differ and are alike: If viewers come away with one thing about the process today, I want them to understand that the difference is, there is a two-step process now. The House Intelligence Committee will have public hearings. That's something we didn't see in Watergate and Clinton, because there were previous investigations leading into impeachment. Here, the Intelligence Committee is doing the first investigation. And Republicans are right that, in that portion of it, the president doesn't have rights to question testimony or to question witnesses. But there's the second part of the process, which is House Judiciary Committee, should impeachment move forward. And that process, Nick, actually is almost exactly parallel to what we have seen in impeachments before.
**That designation was so ordered to be created by McConnell's current wife who happens to be the Secretary of Transportation as appointed by Trump.
P.S. Too young to know the term in the title? Back in the really old days and primarily in the South, such phrases as "peachy keen" and "feeling peachy" circulated around parts of the country, the term Georgia peach commonly used in describing a Southern "belle." Personally, I never heard anyone actually say any such phrases in real life, although its origins were said to be credited to a radio host back in the late 40s said Merriam Webster.
So how difficult is it to actually impeach a U.S. President? Some months ago, The Atlantic featured a story by senior editor Yoni Appelbaum that suggested what might constitute grounds for considering impeachment and its resulting effects on a sitting president. He started his piece with this: The electorate passes judgment on its presidents and their shortcomings every four years. But the Framers were concerned that a president could abuse his authority in ways that would undermine the democratic process and that could not wait to be addressed. So they created a mechanism for considering whether a president is subverting the rule of law or pursuing his own self-interest at the expense of the general welfare—in short, whether his continued tenure in office poses a threat to the republic. This mechanism is impeachment...Impeachment is a process, not an outcome, a rule-bound procedure for investigating a president, considering evidence, formulating charges, and deciding whether to continue on to trial...The protections of the process alone are formidable...The process of impeachment can also surface evidence. He goes on to point out that with Nixon (who resigned, rather than be impeached), his subpoenaed taped were considered so obviously altered that a Federal judge ordered the White House to release the originals which, unfortunately for Nixon, held the recordings that led to his demise. Trump, it would appear, has done the same by having his original recorded calls placed in an area highly inaccessible and generally reserved only for highly secret intelligence.
The main argument going forward with the impeachment hearings would appear to be based on 1) a possible obstruction of justice and 2) high crimes and misdemeanors. So what exactly are the definitions of those two phrases? It's a good question that is exposing what may be a less-than-clearly-defined definition. Said the same magazine in a later piece: One of the most compelling arguments about the meaning of those words is that the Framers, in Article II’s command that a president faithfully execute his office, imposed upon him fiduciary obligations. As the constitutional historian Robert Natelson explained in the Federalist Society Review, the “founding generation [understood] ‘high … Misdemeanors’ to mean ‘breach of fiduciary duty.’” Eighteenth-century lawyers instead used terms such as breach of trust—which describes the same thing. “Parliamentary articles of impeachment explicitly and repetitively described the accused conduct as a breach of trust,” Natelson argues, and 18th-century British legal commentators explained how impeachment for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was warranted for all sorts of noncriminal violations that were, in essence, fiduciary breaches. What?
So jump to the testimonies now appearing and Congress issuing subpoenas for that information. If you or I simply ignored those Congressional subpoenas we would likely answer that knock on the door and be greeted by U.S. Marshalls waiting with handcuffs (the penalty of such refusal is a misdemeanor that carries a possibility of a year in prison); but if you're in the White House, you can basically ignore all of that (and Trump has done so, even ordering his staff to also ignore the subpoenas). Congress then issues either a civil or a criminal "contempt" charge and from there it heads to the Department of Justice. Said the Congressional Research Service in explaining the process: The criminal contempt statute outlines the process by which the House or Senate may refer the non-compliant witness to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal prosecution. Under 2 U.S.C. § 194, once a committee reports the failure to comply with a subpoena to its parent body, the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House is directed to “certify[] the statement of facts...to the appropriate United States attorney, whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” The statute does not expressly require approval of the contempt citation by the committee’s parent body, but both congressional practice and judicial decisions suggest that approval may be necessary. Although approval of a criminal contempt citation under § 194 appears to impose a mandatory duty on the U.S. Attorney to submit the violation to a grand jury, the executive branch has repeatedly asserted that it retains the discretion to determine whether to do so. A few days ago, the DOJ did just that and passed judgement that the subpoenas could indeed be ignored per Trump's order. Instead of checks & balances, it would appear to be checkmate.
So where does it go from here? Perhaps to the Federal courts? In a little-covered issue, the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell (currently battling off the moniker Moscow Mitch due to the deals he has made with Russian oligarchs to bring monies into his state, reported Rolling Stone, that and he being the only Congressional member to have a special liaison** speed grants of $78 million to his state), earlier changed the rules of the Senate to drop the review time for approving Federal judges from 30-hours to 2-hours (such judges are appointed for life and not subject to public review); this has resulted in an accelerated series of appointments, even leading to five such appointees who were ruled "unqualified" by the nonpartisan American Bar Association (some have never tried a case as an attorney in a courtroom). As to the Republican's version that the House is not following the rules in issuing subpoenas, the truth is that when they controlled the House and John Boehner was Speaker, they themselves changed the rules to the current ones. Hmm...so let's jump to another issue that's emerging and that is one of mental health.
Another piece in The Atlantic brought up the issue of the mental health of Trump, although psychiatric ethics laws prevent a qualified practitioner from issuing any such diagnosis without actually examining the person; this was followed by a more in-depth analysis by writer George Conway who cited such publications as the Federalist Papers and the Harvard Law Review. But a nonpartisan overview also appeared in The Conversation which said in part: ...how dangerous leaders rise to power. Their rise requires all three elements of a “toxic triangle” comprising leaders with dangerous psychological disorders, a core base of followers and an environment that is conducive to their rise to power. Such people do not rise simply on their own, but rather as part of a political party that adopts their values and enables their rise to power. This understanding of how pathological leaders emerge has profound implications for democracy. It suggests, for example, that mechanisms such as impeachment and the 25th amendment of the US constitution, which determines what to do if a president become unable to discharge their powers, fail to address the very real dangers that pathological leaders pose to democracy. Such mechanisms rely on the rogue leader being somewhat of an outlier and depend on the majority of legislators remaining wedded to democracy. However, because pathological leaders typically rise to power with the support of political parties and with mass support, this is often simply not the case.
A quick browse through the web will reveal sites that support any view, from conspiracy to white nationalist, from patriotic die-hard to "proven fallacies" (a quote from the comedian Norm Crosby who loved to base his routines on playing with grammar). But what is occurring in the U.S., both with social and corporate media, is revealing that the divide among the U.S. population still exists. For many, as long as the markets and the economy continue to do well much can be "forgiven," or can it? With lead restrictions being removed and factories again being allowed to dump toxic pollutants into rivers, such environmental decisions will affect far more than people just living near such areas in the U.S. And what's happening in our Congress only shows what has happened before throughout our history as the party in power changes the rules then grumbles and gripes about it when they lose power and the same rules are enforced by the other party. In today's circus of a world, it would seem that only one real decision-maker remains and it is that of the people voting. Voted in or voted out, impeached or not, what or who makes the rules will have to be decided by the voters...whether the attitudes and deeply engrained beliefs of the people also change may have to wait a bit longer. By the way, did I mention that Congress still allows any sitting President to have war powers, with or without Congress' or the people's say? Yikes...
*NPR reporter Lisa Desjardin explained a bit more about how the current hearings both differ and are alike: If viewers come away with one thing about the process today, I want them to understand that the difference is, there is a two-step process now. The House Intelligence Committee will have public hearings. That's something we didn't see in Watergate and Clinton, because there were previous investigations leading into impeachment. Here, the Intelligence Committee is doing the first investigation. And Republicans are right that, in that portion of it, the president doesn't have rights to question testimony or to question witnesses. But there's the second part of the process, which is House Judiciary Committee, should impeachment move forward. And that process, Nick, actually is almost exactly parallel to what we have seen in impeachments before.
**That designation was so ordered to be created by McConnell's current wife who happens to be the Secretary of Transportation as appointed by Trump.
P.S. Too young to know the term in the title? Back in the really old days and primarily in the South, such phrases as "peachy keen" and "feeling peachy" circulated around parts of the country, the term Georgia peach commonly used in describing a Southern "belle." Personally, I never heard anyone actually say any such phrases in real life, although its origins were said to be credited to a radio host back in the late 40s said Merriam Webster.
Comments
Post a Comment
What do YOU think? Good, bad or indifferent, this blog is happy to hear your thoughts...criticisms, corrections and suggestions always welcome.