The Impeachement of Trump: History and Two Views

The United States constitution provides for impeachment and conviction, resulting in removal from office, of a President for “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  The three of us agree the issue of impeaching President Donald Trump will arise. Enough of Trump’s actions present questions of illegality and/or impropriety that the matter will come up.  We don’t agree on when and how it might happen. Woodson says impeachment will occur within the first year of his presidency. Henry and Rob are not sure it will happen.

Recent History  
The two recent impeachment cases involving Richard Nixon in 1974 and Bill Clinton in 1998 raise questions related to what might bring about Trump’s impeachment and when. Nixon faced a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, but he could have avoided conviction if enough Senate Republicans had stayed with him, since conviction requires a two-thirds vote. Republican control of both the House and Senate, at least until the 2018 elections, represents a major obstacle to impeaching Trump. The effort to remove Clinton never had much chance because, though passage of a resolution by the House was not in doubt, hardly anyone believed the Senate would convict.  Similarly, Trump can survive as long as 34 Republican senators stick with him.

One View   
Having acknowledged the history and the potential difficulty of removing Trump from office, Woodson still believes it will happen within the next year.  He says, “Donald Trump’s behavior is more egregious than the behavior of either Nixon or Clinton. Donald Trump is a Kleptocrat.  We are less than 60 days into his presidency and already his choice for National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, has resigned under a cloud of treasonous suspicion for working as a foreign agent while serving in the Trump administration.  I think Trump knew. I think it will be proven that the Trump campaign staff was in collusion with the Russians in the 2016 Presidential election. I think Trump knew. Trump has been involved with the construction of a hotel in a foreign country that was partly financed by the Iranian Revolutionary Army, when Iran was declared a terrorist state.  I think Trump knew." 

"Trump has done dirty business with members of the Russian oligarchy, in one instance selling a property to one oligarch for 100 million dollars that Trump had just purchased for 40 million dollars.  No property appreciates in value that fast.  His daughter, Ivanka, and son- in- law Jared Kushner, continue to do business with foreign countries while sitting in on foreign policy meetings with Trump.  I think Trump is certain to be found guilty of running afoul of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, both prior to and during his presidency.  Trump’s denigration of democratic institutions – the federal judiciary, federal judges, investigative agencies, and a free press – has already injured the foundation of this democracy and major western democracies around the world."

“It is just a matter of time before the few statesmen that we have left in Congress – Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain – will decide that the future of democracy as we know it is at risk and decide to do something about it.  They will have to wait a little while longer, for public opinion to turn, before they can act. But, act they will. Trump’s assault on the ACA and health care, to the detriment of his base, will certainly hasten the deterioration of his popularity with his base.  As of this writing, his disapproval rating is at 54% and climbing.  Sure, Republicans will have to abandon their hopes of passing much of the legislation that they have waited years to pass.  But it will become increasingly clear to them that the choice is between a short term goal of getting a Republican agenda passed and preserving democracy. I am betting that the choice will be to preserve democracy.”

Different Views   
Henry and Rob don’t see it that way, despite how much they’d like to see Woodson’s prediction of a year one impeachment come true.  Rob, for example, holds out some hope Democrats can win back the House in 2018, giving them the levers of power in the lower chamber. If that happened, an impeachment resolution theoretically could get out of committee in 2019.  With a Democratic majority, it might pass. If Trump’s bad acts are serious enough, his support in the Senate could collapse, as Nixon’s did, with Republican senators scurrying to save their own skins instead of going down with a sinking ship.  They would have to calculate that doing otherwise would assure their own political destruction.  Rob can at least see this scenario after 2018, if a lot of things come together.

Henry sits back with some amusement, and angst, at this and concludes that while Trump will do something (or already has and we don’t know about it yet) meriting impeachment, the odds are just too long. The congressional math doesn’t add up and probably won’t before most of America concludes that finding the right candidate to run against Trump in 2020 represents a better use of time, energy, and resources than trying to impeach him.  Henry also thinks too many people “put two and two together and get five,” meaning Trump’s disinformation campaign has succeeded well enough that he can hold onto sufficient public support to stay in office until the electorate kicks him out the old fashioned way.

Your turn.

  

             

The Trump Voters: A Pox on Their Houses?

One of us heard a National Public Radio report of a situation that raised the question of how to look at Trump voters who may suffer because of his polices. We found we couldn’t speak collectively because we see the answer to the question differently.

One doctor lost   
The NPR story involved a hospital in an unnamed rural Georgia county which, well before Trump’s travel ban, hired a doctor from one of the affected, predominately Muslim countries.  Because of the travel ban, the doctor couldn’t get to the United States. With the intervention of the courts, the matter likely got straightened out and no long term harm resulted, but in the situation we found an ethical issue.

The doctor hired might have been the only one available to that rural community for a while. That has political implications because a not insignificant number of the people the doctor would serve likely voted for Trump. After all, he won many rural Georgia counties by 2-1 or better.

Rob, in particular, hasn’t been shy about expressing his disdain for Trump or about casting aspersions on the motives of his voters, believing many voted for him out of mean-spirited hostility toward America’s changing demographics and fear of immigrants, Muslims, and people of color generally. He wants Trump out, and has dared hope some who voted for him experience hardships as a result of his policies and, therefore, turn against him. This reap-what-you-sowed outlook may seem cruel, even unpatriotic, but people opposed to Trump think and say it. That came to mind with the report about the Georgia community that might lose its doctor as a result of this President’s harsh immigration policies.

Woodson and Henry hold similar disdain for Trump and harbor suspicions about the motives of some Trump supporters, particularly self-described Tea Party adherents. Woodson, in particular, believes Trump won partly because the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency so failed to appeal to voters concerned about the threat posed to their jobs by trade agreements and technology. Polls show a number of Trump voters, especially in the decisive states in the upper Midwest, twice supported Barak Obama.  These voters may not have seen a choice between Clinton and Trump in the same stark terms we did, so wishing a pox on their houses seems unfair.        

Ethics, morality, spirituality   At a basic level, is there ever a justification for wishing ill on fellow humans because of political differences? Henry, in particular, finds no justification for that.  Scripture (1 Peter 3:8) reminds us that compassion requires “Not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing.”  

Rob acknowledges the righteousness of that view, but still sees ways in which ethics and morality demand a different response.  If Trump’s policies will ultimately do the nation maximum harm, doesn’t that justify whatever would get rid of them, and him, quickest? Might not more people suffer from continuing Trump’s policies into a second term? If so, the sooner Americans realize their mistake, however they come to that understanding, the sooner the country rids itself of him.

Woodson disdains this view because it operates from an ethically questionable ends-justifies-the-means philosophy and Henry largely shares his concern.  Republicans, they remind us, employed this approach in their unsuccessful effort to assure Barack Obama’s failure as President. Putting party over principle hurt the country and, whatever its political benefit, amounted to a failure of leadership.                           

Senators in Turmoil    Senate Democrats face this dilemma every day in deciding how to vote on confirmation of Trump’s appointees, many of them unqualified advocates of dastardly policies opposed to every value those senators were elected to advance.  A few Trump nominees merit the office they would hold and could do the country good.  But some in the Democratic base want their senators to oppose every Trump nominee on general principle and threaten retaliation against those who don’t take that approach.

So what’s right? Adhere to your political desires and wish ill on Trump supporters, despite ethical, moral, and spiritual qualms or take the high road, knowing that failing to oppose Trump’s policies may result in their continuation to the detriment of even more people?  Vote for the good nominee knowing that person may do well and make it more likely Trump remains in office? Oppose them all on general principle, no matter the individual merits? Woodson and Henry believe Democrats should strongly oppose Trump when they think he’s wrong, but support him when they think he’s right, viewing each nominee and situation individually. They see that as leadership.

Rob ends up conflicted about this. For him, both positions come with high costs and neither satisfies.  The moral high ground runs the risk of making Trump’s path easier. Regressing to pettiness arguably compromises basic values, but perhaps makes an early Trump exit more likely. He thinks Trump may have changed the rules, making dealing with him as a normal political leader with whom one disagrees not possible. In other words, isn’t Trump an outlier requiring an extraordinary response?

Woodson and Henry are not conflicted. They see moral leadership as good politics and point to the moral authority of leaders like King, Gandhi, and Mandela.  The power of their moral authority ultimately led to victory in the struggles they led. They point to King’s often quoted observation that the “moral arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.”

This isn’t an easy issue.  We don’t see it the same way. What do you see?