Why There Can’t Be an Impeachment of Trump in His First Administration
Actually most people don’t understand the meaning of the
word “impeachment” as used in the United States Constitution. They think it means throwing the president
out of office. It doesn’t.
An impeachment is the same thing as an indictment in normal
criminal proceedings. Under the Constitution
a majority of the House of Representatives can impeach the president for “high
crimes or misdemeanors” (an ambiguous phrase), but the process can include any civil
officer of the United States, including the president, vice president, judges,
etc. There have been two successful impeachments
of our presidents: Andrew Johnson (Lincoln’s successor) in 1867 and Bill Clinton
in 1999. Both were acquitted in their
subsequent trials. Thus, technically,
the title of this post is wrong: there might be an “impeachment” of Trump, but
I was using the word there the way most people use it: removal from
office. It was too awkward to phrase it accurately
in a title of a blog post. Back to the
matter at hand:
Following impeachment the trial of the person impeached is
held in the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice. The House of Representatives presents the
case against the person who has been impeached and that person is then removed
from office only if two-thirds of the Senators vote for removal. Johnson survived this trial by one vote and
then served the rest of his term as president.
It would have taken 67 votes to convict Clinton, and the most the
Republicans could garner were 50 (no Democratic senators voted against
him). History records that both
impeached presidents were acquitted. (Richard
Nixon resigned immediately before the House of Representatives would have voted
to impeach him.) It’s a strange system
that has members of the house as prosecutors, senators as a jury, and the Chief
Justice of the United States Supreme Court as a trial court judge. Few of these august people typically have any
experience in these roles.
I’ve written once before about impeaching our current
president, and in that post I elaborated about both prior impeachments in some
detail [see “Related Posts” below]. This
time around I want to explore the current climate for the reality of a possible
conviction of Donald Trump in any impeachment brought against him by the 2019
or 2020 House of Representatives.
Yes, with a Democratic House it’s possible (in spite of the
title of this post) for a majority of the members to vote to impeach Trump for
some crime or another (pick your favorite Trump “high crime or misdemeanor”—alas,
there are a large number of choices).
But using “impeachment” to throw Trump out of office by a vote by
two-thirds of the Senators, well . . . it’s impossible. You can surely see why. The 116th Congress, convening in 2019, will bring
some good news for the Democrats since they have gained a majority in the House
of Representatives after November 2018 election. If they act quickly and have sufficient
evidence of Trump’s ghastly misdeeds they might vote to impeach him and send
the case to the Senate for trial. Robert
Mueller could help mightily here should his investigation accuse Trump of
indictable offenses.
The Senate, however, is where this would all collapse. In 2019 it is composed of 53 Republicans, 45
Democrats, and two independents (who vote with the Democrats on most issues). Even
if all the Democrats (and those two
independents) vote to convict Trump that adds up to only 47 of the needed 67 votes to back a moving van up to the White House's rear door. It’s nonsense to think 20 of the current Republican
Senators (TWENTY!) will turn against
Trump and vote to convict him. You only
have to look at the Kavanaugh mess to see how much solidarity the Republicans
have in the Senate. One or two (hell, on
a fair day even three) might vote to
convict. Then Trump would laugh, engage
in a twitter fit of self-congratulation, and things would go back to the usual
chaos of his administration.
Since this is obviously the result it would be a waste of everyone’s
time to impeach Trump in the House and face the futility of an acquittal in the
Senate. [Of course that was also true of
the Clinton impeachment so Democrats might do something futile just to
embarrass Trump, which, admittedly, might be tempting.]
“Wait!” you might say.
“What if the Democrats elect a huge number of new Senators in the 2020
election—wouldn’t that change things?”
Yes it would, but that new Senate wouldn’t convene until January of 2021
and by that time a trial in the Senate it would be relevant only if Trump had
just won reelection to a new four year term.
And surely that won’t happen.
And surely that won’t happen.
And surely that won’t happen.
-------------------------------
Related Posts:
“A Guide to
the Best of My Blog”; http://douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-guide-to-best-of-my-blog.html
“Impeaching Donald Trump: A Lawyer Looks
at the Legal Issues,” August 16, 2017; http://douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2017/08/impeaching-donald-trump-lawyer-looks-at.html
Comments
Post a Comment