in ,

4 Reasons Trump’s Impeachment Is The Weakest In U.S. History

Critics of Trump note that no crime is necessary to impeach the president. While that’s true, it speaks to how weak the Democrats’ case against Trump is.

Authored by Mollie Hemingway, via The Federalist,

President Donald Trump joined Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson in the club of impeached presidents Wednesday night. Like the other two, Trump will be acquitted by the Senate once the articles of impeachment are delivered.

The case for Trump’s impeachment is the weakest of the three. If we include Richard Nixon, who resigned on his way to impeachment, it’s the weakest of the four. Here’s why.

1. No Actual Crime

Previous impeachments at least had a crime. Andrew Johnson was the first U.S. president to be impeached. He faced 11 articles of impeachment, mostly built around his violation of the Tenure of Office Act of 1867. That act limited the power of presidents to fire employees in Senate-approved positions without the consent of the Senate. While the law was blatantly unconstitutional, Johnson did violate it by getting rid of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton.

Clinton was impeached for actual crimes that would get the rest of us in a whole lot of trouble. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, false statements he’d made in an earlier deposition, and false statements he allowed his attorney to make about witness tampering. He was also impeached for obstructing justice in a case filed against him by encouraging Lewinsky to make a false statement and give false testimony, by hiding gifts he’d given to her, getting her a job in exchange for favorable testimony, attempted witness tampering with his secretary, and making false and misleading statements to jurors.

Nixon would have been impeached for obstructing an investigation into the unlawful break-in by his Committee to Re-Elect the President at the Watergate building and using the IRS and other agencies to violate others’ privacy.

By contrast, President Trump was not impeached for any recognizable crime. Critics of Trump note that no crime is necessary to impeach the president. While that’s true, it speaks to how weak the Democrats’ case against Trump is.

2. Punishing Trump for Exercising Constitutional Privileges

Trump is being impeached for abusing his power and for obstructing Congress. The first charge relates to complaints with how Trump handled foreign policy with Ukraine. In a friendly phone call with the Ukraine president, Trump asked for help investigating corruption issues in the country. Since some of the corruption touched on the family of Joe Biden, Democrats say Trump abused his power since Biden may be his 2020 election opponent.

Biden was the Obama administration’s point man in Ukraine when his son, Hunter, who had no expertise in the region or industry, was being paid $80,000 a month to sit on the board of an energy concern there. Setting aside that charge, the second charge is more troubling.

Democrats say that Trump’s decision to exercise his constitutional privilege to protect executive communication means he should be removed from office. That’s their second charge — obstruction of Congress. Many presidents have battled with Congress over their executive privilege and what it covers, but the idea that the debate is cause for impeachment is remarkably weak. If President Trump had defied a court order to turn over documents, that would make for a stronger case. But that hasn’t happened.

3. Bipartisan Opposition Instead of Bipartisan Support

Previous impeachments had bipartisan support. In Trump’s case, not a single Republican supported impeachment and several Democrats declined to support it. This is a remarkable turn of events from the time that impeachment first began to be lobbied for. The media and others in the resistance pushed impeachment within hours of Trump’s inauguration.

The initial plan was to spin up a special counsel that would deliver a report on collusion with Russia to steal the election. That dream fizzled with the inability to find a single American, much less anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign, who had done so. But at its onset, the plan allegedly had Republican support. Now, no Republicans are joining Rep. Adam Schiff and Rep. Jerry Nadler in their impeachment goals.

The plan was clearly to start with limited Republican support and grow from there. Instead, there was no growth in the ranks of Republican support. And while high percentages of Americans have told pollsters for months that they would like the Bad Orange Man impeached, there was no movement in those polls toward more support. Even more surprisingly, Trump’s approval ratings went up. This shows us that the bipartisan growth and momentum that was needed isn’t happening.

4. Failure to Do the Work

Previous impeachments and impeachment efforts required a great deal of work from congressional and other investigators. Some spent years investigating matters before bringing them to Congress.

In this case, impeachment was built entirely around a late July phone call with Ukraine’s president. The original impeachment effort was to say that the phone call violated campaign finance law. That charge morphed into claims of bribery, extortion, and obstruction of justice. By the time two articles of impeachment were drafted, it was clear that the case had lost focus.

After the vote, some Democrats suggested that the House could keep investigating the matter. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi herself signaled a lack of confidence in her members’ work when she said that the House might not even send the articles over to the Senate for a trial. She claimed that was because of how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell planned to run the trial, but he said he would use the same rules that were used in the Clinton trial.

House members also coordinated with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on how the Senate trial should go. He told television cameras that he would like to call witnesses to further investigate the underlying matter. This would only be necessary if the House didn’t bother to complete their investigation because they were rushing.

Democrats hope to tarnish Trump heading into 2020. While they have done their best, what they’ve mostly provided is the weakest impeachment case in U.S. history.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!

Report

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.

What do you think?

7
Leave a Reply

avatar
6 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
TheCelotajsT W Huningoldandjadedj tEtta Quette Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Tom Welsh
Guest
Tom Welsh

“Since some of the corruption touched on the family of Joe Biden, Democrats say Trump abused his power since Biden may be his 2020 election opponent”.

Looked at the other way round, that would imply that anyone who might become a presidential candidate at some time in the future has a licence to commit any crimes he likes, with immunity from investigation let alone prosecution.

Come to think of it…

oldandjaded
Member
oldandjaded

Anyone with an IQ over their shoe size, “right” or “left”, knows there are no legitimate grounds to impeach Trump. Listen to Jimmy Dore on the impeachment. But there were no “legitimate grounds” to kill Kennedy either.

Etta Quette
Guest
Etta Quette

I think if they’d just released a video of him slurping his soup, they’d have had a stronger case.

j t
Guest
j t

How can you not add to your “report” the fact that the Democrats had already agreed on the need for impeachment BEFORE HE EVEN TOOK OFFICE!! What do you mean “do the work”…??? This was an impeachment in search of ANYTHING impeachable…or not, anything to continue their non-stop, ongoing smear job of the President. If what they came up with was used against any modern President in this country as a reasonable cause for impeachment, they ALL would have been impeached!! This was seditious and most likely should be seen as treasonous…nothing less than an attempted partisan coup against a… Read more »

oldandjaded
Member
oldandjaded

“This was seditious and most likely should be seen as treasonous…nothing less than an attempted partisan coup against a duly elected, seated President.”

Totally agree with everything except “partisan” which completely overlooks the fact that the attempted coup was largely conducted by the FBI and CIA. The Dems are just the window dressing, and to see it as a coup “by the democrats” is a TERRIBLE mistake. Its FAR bigger and deeper than that, its systemic. The reaction would have been exactly the same if you had elected an “unchosen” candidate from the other side of the aisle.

T W Huning
Guest
T W Huning

High crimes and misdemeanors (not to be confused with misdemeanors as opposed to felonies) means that it has to be a de facto crime, if not one that’s on the books.

TheCelotajs
Guest
TheCelotajs

Where is the Crime and Where is the evidence of a Crime!

Brexit Could See the Return of the Falkland Islands to Argentina

The UN’s ‘woke’ climate change propaganda is an insult to science