1) THREE QUESTIONS.
Would you be happy if Donald Trump were no longer president? Does the evidence presented in the Articles of Impeachment, as reported by the House of Judiciary Committee on December 18th and approved by the full House the next day, provide sufficient grounds for the Senate to convict and remove Donald Trump from office? Do you think that the procedures governing the impeachment process will allow his removal from office? Before you answer these three questions, consider the following.
2) BACKGROUND.
Removal from office is a two-step process that follows carefully reasoned procedures set by our Founding Fathers.
Step one straightforward. By simple majority, the House of Representatives must approve the Articles of Impeachment. This is a statement of wrongdoing and equates to a criminal indictment in a civil court.
Evidence supporting the call for impeachment can come from an outside investigation or, as in the current (Trump) case, from an investigation conducted by the House Intelligence Committee. That evidence is then presented to the House Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee can call additional witnesses before determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant the issuance of the Articles of Impeachment.
Two important points are worth noting. One, each House Committee is chaired by a member of the majority party; and, two, the chairman of each committee has the authority to set all rules governing the presentation and consideration of evidence. In other words, the majority party sets the rules.
If the Judiciary Committee determines that sufficient evidence does exist, the Articles of Impeachment are drawn up and presented to the full body of the House of Representatives for vote. If approved by a simple majority, the articles are then passed to the Senate.
2) BACKGROUND. (Cont’d)
Now step two begins. Upon receipt of the evidence, as specified in the Articles of Impeachment, the Senate conducts a formal trial to determine the president’s political fate. Unlike the House where a simple majority is required, a super majority of two-thirds of the Senate is required to convict and remove the president from office.
It is important to note the procedural difference between the House and the Senate. Action by the House’s decision (by simple majority) is not unduly onerous. Action by the Senate (by super majority) is considerably more difficult. The Founders clearly intended to make it easy to call attention to perceived wrongdoing (House Impeachment), even if this indictment follows party lines. In contrast, the procedure leading to conviction and removal from office (Senate Trial) was structured to be more difficult, requiring bipartisan support. Thus, one political party, by itself, would not be able to remove a sitting president.
Were that not the case, the impeachment process could be used whenever a majority party lost a presidential election and decided to overturn that election through congressional action.
The Founding Fathers were clear on this point. Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution sets a high bar for conviction (“Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”), Unless a sitting president acted in a totally unacceptable way, the Founders firmly believed that he ought to be removed by ballot in the next election and not by political maneuvering.
Very clever. These guys (the Founders) knew what they were doing.
3) THREE QUESTIONS REVISITED.
Now, take a moment to revisit our initial three questions. How would you choose to answer them?
Question #1: Would you be happy if Donald Trump were no longer president? Many of my friends, especially those on the left, would say, “yes, I want him out and gone!” No surprises there. Since the morning of November 9th, 2016, many felt that he should not have become president at all and dedicated their energies to his removal. What do you think?
1) THREE QUESTION REVISITED. (Cont’d)
Question #2: Does the evidence presented in the Articles of Impeachment, as reported by the House Judiciary Committee on December 18th and approved by the full House the next day, provide sufficient grounds for the Senate to convict and remove Donald Trump from office?
This one is a little more complicated. Within this question there are two issues that need to be addressed.
First, is the evidence sufficient to support the charges? If so, do those charges reach the standard required for the president’s removal? Take a close look at the evidence and charges before you answer.
In his 298 page report, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee) charged the president with “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction of Congress.” Does the evidence presented by Adam Schiff (Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee) support those charges?
Many would say, “absolutely, he bribed a foreign leader for personal gain and then tried to obstruct congress’s efforts to investigate the allegations.” Others would disagree. Judging evidence is subjective and open to debate. But what about the second issue?
Whether you agree that the evidence of wrongdoing is sufficient or not, do Nadler’s two charges (“Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction of Congress”) constitute “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors?”
Again, without hesitation, many would say, “yes, the man is corrupt and is a threat to our constitutional democracy.” Others would say, “although his conduct was not what I would want from my president, his misdeeds do not rise to the level required for conviction by the Senate.” Which position would you take?
Question #3: Do you think that the procedures governing the impeachment process will allow his removal from office? This interesting.
As with the first two questions, many of my more liberal friends bemoan the fact that Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, has the authority to shape the rules governing a trial by the Senate. They feel that, without a more equitable process, it is unlikely that a super majority could be convinced to vote for conviction. They urge that the rules be changed to allow Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, to call new witnesses and to present new evidence. They argue that Americans deserve to see all the facts and that justice must be served. They firmly believe that any new evidence would sway enough Republican Senators to gain the super majority needed to convict. And even if they did not secure the super majority, the continuing process would be an ongoing reminder to the America public that Donald Trump is not fit for office. How do you feel about the procedures for trial in the Senate?
4) ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION.
Okay, you have had a chance to answer the three questions posted at the start of this essay. But let me challenge you with one additional question.
Question #4: As you considered the three initial questions, did you take the time to read the supporting documents …… did you commit to objectively consider all aspects of the issue before reaching your conclusion?
All too often, the answer came back, “no, I did not.” Too many of my friends, on both sides of the issue, had become so invested a particular outcome that were not willing to apply objective analysis in reaching their conclusions.
If you are one of those, please re-consider. It is important. See my essays “Open Minded” and “DNC Debates” for more.