Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 60, argued for the impeachment process in the Constitution because he feared a European power bribing the head of America’s government. That was a not unheard-of practice at the time. Hamilton never imagined the tables might be reversed.
Both previous impeachment processes in our history were purely political. Congress passed an almost certainly unconstitutional Tenure of Office Act, solely to protect Edwin Stanton’s removal from Andrew Johnson’s cabinet. Stanton was the only cabinet member who supported the Radical Republican reconstruction policy. Johnson ignored Congress and fired Stanton, expecting a Supreme Court hearing. Johnson survived by the margin of a single vote.
The Articles of Impeachment against President Bill Clinton had a slightly stronger legal basis. He had lied under oath about extramarital sex. The second article, obstruction of justice, was lamer as the voting record indicated. But the American people overwhelmingly saw the impeachment as a political stunt.
The one president whose impeachment would have undoubtedly succeeded in removing him from office was Richard Nixon, but he resigned before the matter reached a vote. Republicans stood firmly behind Nixon until the “smoking gun” was released. Ironically, the more infamous act Nixon was guilty of was only rumored at the time, but discovered to be factual years later. While a presidential candidate he successfully pleaded with North Vietnamese officials to reject Lyndon Johnson’s peace proposal to get a better deal from Nixon should he be elected. That act not only amounted to seeking a foreign country’s interference in an American election, it was clearly an immoral act of treason for personal gain.
That brings us to Democrats attempting to impeach Donald Trump. Trump’s seeking Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election lacks the severity of Nixon’s treason, as thousands of American lives would not be lost as a result. Nevertheless, his actions were, at the barest minimum, an immoral attack on the integrity of the American political system. The acts of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton pale in comparison. Neither acted in a manner brazenly opposed to democratic principles.
As in the Nixon case, Republicans are giving Mr. Trump full support. Democrats, some who fear a repeat of the impact of the Clinton case, are not quite universally in support of impeachment. Independents are currently torn between the two. But it is important to note that, at the time of this writing, support for impeachment is gaining a head of steam.
One of the most intriguing and dumbfounding arguments against a Trump impeachment comes from conservative writer Jonah Goldberg of the American Enterprise Institution. Goldberg wrote that he is convinced that Trump is guilty of wrongdoing in this case and that it is obviously an impeachable offense. However, he doubts the wisdom of impeaching Trump. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a president must be impeached for violating a public trust. Further, he argues, the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to convict Trump and remove him from office, which means Trump would claim exoneration and his behavior would become normalized for future presidents. Goldberg’s premise omits that failing to bring impeachment is even more likely to normalize such behavior.
Republicans are ignoring the smoking gun in this case. Trump has openly admitted asking other nations to investigate his political rival. Further, his call to the Ukrainian president was placed in the server restricted to super-secret materials. The senator whose deciding vote saved Johnson was included in Kennedy’s “Profiles in Courage” because he placed national interest above partisan politics. Will there be such an honorable Republican today who will put nation above party?
Michael Adkins was formerly chair of the Hancock County Democratic Party. Send comments to [email protected].
