President
Trump’s May 15 firing of FBI Director James Comey unleashed a string of events
the nation may feel for years. By the
end of that week, the Justice Department, under mounting public and political
pressure, named a special prosecutor to pursue the investigation into possible
collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in interfering in the 2016
presidential election. Published reports soon indicated investigators were
targeting a “person of interest” working on the White House staff. Those reports described the unnamed
individual as “close” to the President. It’s now apparent that person is
Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Cable
news stories, editorial pieces, and blogs suggested Trump’s personal actions
constituted obstruction of justice. A
few Congressional Democrats, and more than a few people around the country,
openly began using the “I” word and Trump in the same sentence.
Facts aren’t in yet We know some of the facts of Trump’s conduct, but not
everything. We know he has offered
public statements that, on their face, seem like an effort to shut down or impede
the FBI’s Russia investigation. He told NBC’s Lester Holt he fired Comey
because of that investigation, despite the pretext of dissatisfaction with
Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mail matter. Published reports
indicated Trump asked Comey to stop investigating his fired national security
advisor, General Michael Flynn. Comey
supposedly wrote a memo shortly after that conversation, contemporaneously memorializing
the President’s effort to get him to drop that investigation. The Comey memo hasn’t been released and Comey
hasn’t testified about that meeting. Reportedly, he’s agreed to appear before
the Senate Intelligence Committee in early June. Until everything comes out, we
can’t know the exact facts. What we do know has the odious smell of obstruction
of justice
We can’t say
if the special prosecutor will conclude Trump’s actions constitute obstruction
of justice. As Henry, the one of us who’s served as a judicial officer charged
with applying the law of obstruction of justice, points out, federal obstruction
statues are complex and subject to differing interpretations. As legally
trained individuals, we recognize the importance of basing conclusions on
complete factual development of the record and a full understanding of
applicable law.
Woodson,
however, has seen enough. He says, “The
President encouraged Flynn to plead the Fifth, though Flynn remains under
investigation for operating as a foreign agent while serving as National
Security Advisor and for colluding with the Russians in interfering in our
national election. Trump fired the FBI director for not conducting the
Russia/Trump investigation in a manner that suited hm. He asked the heads of the National
Intelligence and National Security agencies to declare that they found no
collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia when they made no such finding.
If those actions don’t constitute “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” I don’t know
what does.
“I think few
legal scholars would conclude Trump’s actions don’t amount to obstruction of
justice. Ultimately, an elected Congress must determine the political question
of what constitutes “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” I align myself with Justice Potter Stewart’s
sentiments when he explained his determination of pornography. I know “High
Crimes and Misdemeanors” when I see them.”
No crime needed Despite Rob and Henry’s unwillingness to now say that Trump
has committed an impeachable offense, they have no difficulty expressing their
moral, political, and patriotic outrage about what’s happened so far. We titled this piece as we did because we
could find no better phrase than Woodson’s characterization of the President’s
behavior. “Unimaginably immoral” sums up our feelings about the potential irreparable
harm Trump’s acts continue to do to our country’s political and social
institutions. We all agree that if Congress and the courts – the co-equal
branches of our government – don’t move systematically against him, removing
him from office if the facts and law ultimately justify doing so – it may take
years for those institutions to recover.
The
political calculus concerning impeachment remains much the same as we suggested
in our earlier comments on that subject.
With all due respect to Woodson’s belief that it will happen this year,
a sober analysis of the politics still makes that a long shot. Special counsel
Robert Mueller faces a potentially long and complex investigation. Criminal
charges against Trump’s associates, if Mueller brings them, may take years to
prosecute. While Mueller builds cases
against individuals, Republicans retain the levers of power in the House where
impeachment must originate. They haven’t abandoned Trump and any honest
assessment of the mood of Congress still must give him the advantage. Even revelations
that Trump shared with the Russians sensitive American intelligence, probably
given to the United States by Israel, didn’t pry Republicans from Trump’s side.
Trump’s
conduct, especially this sharing of classified intelligence with a hostile
foreign power, saddens and sickens us because we grew up in an America that
considered such behavior treason. We
find watching the party of Lincoln hem and haw about Trump’s actions especially
troubling, since Republicans so often found it convenient to run campaigns
challenging Democrats as unpatriotic. The idea an American President could act
in such a way long seemed unfathomable to us, but if holding power means
everything, we suppose Republican acquiescence to his behavior follows. Trump’s
conduct, if unpunished, suggests we’ve become a nation of men, not laws.
Not over until it’s over We must admit, however, to borrow another overused sports
cliché, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet. Neither Mueller’s investigation nor the
probes by Congress have come to fruition. Indeed, Mueller just picked up the
baton. He enjoys a reputation for determination, independence, and
fairness. Time remains for good
Republicans to step forward and become heroes by putting country ahead of
party.