Random Thoughts Regarding
Impeachment and the Mueller Report
April 22, 2019; April 23
Related:
* Presidential Candidates Rankings, April 15, 2019 (with updates)
* Impeachment and the Mueller Report, April 22, 2019 (with update),
* Presidential Experience: How Your Candidate Measures Up, April 28, 2019
* Democrats Qualified for Debates: Will Your Candidate be in the Debates? April 29, 2019
* Dem Primary Candidates' Ranking - May 2, 2019: How's Your Candidate Ranked?, May 2, 2019
* May 4 Updates: Popularity; Klobuchar; Iowa 2nd District, May 4, 2019
* What Dems are up against; some insights from 2-1/2 years ago: Donald Trump’s Barrel of Squirrels: How Does the Donald Do It? Sept. 26 2016
* Attacks on our democracy and what we can do about it: Columns of Democracy available from Iowa City’s Prairie Lights and Amazon.
Politics and the Constitution
The Constitution specifically imposes on every member of the House of Representatives the power and responsibility for impeaching a president. ("The President ... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Art. II, Sec. 4. "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Art. I, Sec. 2.5. "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Art. I, Sec. 3.6).
There is no provision excluding this responsibility from "cases in which so doing might result in a House member's inability to be reelected," or "cases in which conviction by the Senate is highly unlikely." It is as inappropriate (and possibly unconstitutional) for a member of the House to fail to support an impeachment inquiry for partisan reasons as for that Member to pursue impeachment for partisan reasons.
The founders laid this responsibility upon the House for reasons similar to their choosing the House as the body to declare war (a constitutional obligation House members have also sidestepped) -- because it is the closest to the people who will bear the burden of both decisions.
Grounds for Impeachment
Not only is it impossible to read the Mueller Report -- or even the books and daily newspaper reports about President Trump -- without concluding that an impeachment inquiry is clearly warranted, but the Report's authors suggest that is their conclusion as well.
Although constrained by the distinctions between the powers of an "Independent Counsel" and a "Special Counsel," and their lack of authority to indict a sitting president, the authors note that "a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible" (vol. II, p. 1), and that "a President does not have immunity after he leaves office," leading to their decision to conduct "a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available." (vol. II, p. 1). That certainly sounds like a contemplation of at least the possibility of an indictment for obstruction of justice after Trump leaves office. This conclusion is reinforced with the comment that "we are unable to reach [the] judgment . . . after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice ... " (vol. II, p. 2) along with the ten or more categories of "overarching factual issues" and "general statements about the President's conduct." (vol. II, p. 7).
In addition to possible future indictments for obstruction of justice, the Report states, "The conclusion that Congress may apply obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.” (vol. II, p. 8)
Finally, a simple comparison of the charges and findings regarding the behavior of Trump against those of the two presidents impeached by the House during the past 50 years renders laughable any suggestion that Trump's offenses do not warrant an impeachment inquiry.
President Richard Nixon's impeachment involved his response to an old fashioned physical break-in at Democratic Party headquarters. The articles of impeachment were for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. (The latter was for Nixon's refusal to comply with Congressional subpoenas -- something Trump is currently doing, although Trump is going above and beyond mere refusal by actually suing the Congressional committee!). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon).
For Trump Administration's current refusal to comply with Congress' demands, see Peter Baker, Annie Karni and Alan Rappeport, "Democrats Ask and Trump Says No, Signaling a Bitter Fight Ahead," New York Times, April 23, 2019, p. A12, and Robert Costa, Tom Hamburger, Josh Dawsey and Rosalind S. Helderman, "Trump Says He is Opposed to White House Aides Testifying to Congress, Deepening Power Struggle with Hill," The Washington Post, posted April 23, 2019, 8:28 PM.
President Bill Clinton's two article of impeachment -- for perjury and obstruction of justice -- grew out of a "sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones" and inappropriate sexual encounters with a White House intern. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton).
Impeachment Alternatives
If, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and many other Party leaders urge, there is not to be an impeachment of President Trump, notwithstanding the constitutional obligations of House members, I have urged alternatives such as House resolutions or censure.
What the House must provide, for the sake of our democracy and constitution, as well as the legacy of this House, is more than mere multiple congressional committee hearings. There must be some form of House action, with a recorded vote of each member.
____________________
Following the publication of this blog post analogous analyses have been published. Here are two (with no suggestion this blog post was read by either of them, something I would consider highly unlikely):
Hillary Clinton, "Mueller Documented a Serious Crime Against All Americans. Here's How to Respond," The Washington Post, April 24, 2019, 4:44 PM
Elizabeth Drew, "The Danger in Not Impeaching Trump; It may be risky politically, but Congress has a responsibility to act," The New York Times, April 25, 2019
# # #
December 13, 2010, 9:00 a.m.
Universities Should Use Their Stations to Tell Story
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Explaining the reasoning behind faculty sabbaticals ought to be a slam dunk.
There are thousands of ways in which Iowans have benefited from their State Universities -- everyone from newborn babies to K-12 students, and high school dropouts to professionals with graduate degrees. There is no one living here who is not better off, in some way, as a result.
Thousands of stories. All waiting to be told.
That they are not being told, over the statewide radio network licensed to those universities, is sad, discouraging -- even outrageous.
As I write in this month's Prairie Progressive:
Law aside, the universities are spending big bucks on technology, personnel and press releases to improve their image, encouraging “faculty engagement” with Iowans, and lobbying for a level of financial support from the Legislature more befitting “State” universities. Their failure to enlist in these endeavors the statewide radio network they already own is a bewildering oversight of monumental consequence.
Nicholas Johnson, "The Commercialization of Non-Commercial Radio," The Prairie Progressive, December 2010, p. 2(and embedded here in
Nicholas Johnson, "Commercializing Non-Commercial Radio," November 19, 2010).
For an earlier, wide-ranging exploration of educational radio's early history and role in Iowa, and the cancellation of "Live From Prairie Lights," see Nicholas Johnson, "Public Radio's Self-Inflicted Wounds," November 11-21, 2008, and in the context of today's blog entry, "I never had that many conversations with Richard Nixon. He was not my favorite president. But I recall, in connection with [today's blog], an insight of his that stuck with me over the years. We were talking about media power in general, and public broadcasting in particular, when he said, 'Do you realize that I can reach more people from the smallest radio station in Mississippi than if I were to speak in the local [Washington, D.C., football] stadium?'
"It influenced my accepting invitations to appear as a guest on what were then the TV networks' late night talk shows. In order to reach as many people as would see one of those shows, I calculated, I'd need to speak to a room-full of people at 8:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m., and every hour throughout the day, five days a week, 52 weeks a year -- for three hundred years!")
You want an example of one of those "monumental consequences"?
Look no farther than the current war on faculty sabbaticals.
I don't blame the critics. And changing the name from "sabbaticals" to the universities' current effort at public relations, "professional development assignments," doesn't solve the problem.
It's up to the universities to explain to Iowans what we do, how it benefits them, and how little those who aren't attending the schools are paying for it (because of research grants and other outside support). Even those who are receiving an education in exchange for tuition are getting a bargain -- compared with the cost of an equivalent education at many American public and private schools.
Less than half adult Iowans between the ages of 25 and 34 hold a college degree. And not all of those individuals came away from the experience with enthusiasm for all of their professors.
Far more Iowans are unemployed, part time employed, under employed, paid minimum wage, non-union, or otherwise failing to enjoy the life of a university professor. It is understandable how, without more, it would be difficult for them to understand why the UI football coach should be paid in the millions for providing seven afternoons of entertainment a year for the benefit of those who can afford the "contribution" that enables them to buy season tickets -- let alone to drink while watching the games from luxurious corporate "skyboxes." It's difficult to understand why a university requires so many administrators paid well up in six figures -- with some faculty not far behind.
At a minimum, they would share former UI President David Skorton's acknowledgment that, “When the median family income in Iowa is around $45,000 and I make over $300,000, it’s hard to argue that is not a lot of money. It’s very generous.” Nicholas Johnson, "Pricey Presidents' Added Cost," Daily Iowan, March 7, 2006.
When Iowa legislators and their constituents are then told that "sabbatical" is nothing more than academic-speak for a well-paid faculty member's Hawaiian beach vacation, a negative reaction is understandable.
Indeed, as the Press-Citizen headlined this morning, B.A. Morelli, "Sabbatical Vote By Regents May Draw Backlash," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 13, 2010, p. 1: "The regents vote [authorizing the sabbatical grants to continue] could wind up in the long run hurting the universities, which are trying to regain stability after a series of budget cuts that were among the most severe in the nation."
As Regent Bob Downer said before the Regents' meeting, "the regents need to do a better job explaining the purpose and value of sabbaticals to the public."
The United Negro College Fund's slogan, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste," comes to mind.
I enjoy the news and diversionary entertainment from the radio stations of Iowa's three State universities -- now transferred to IPR -- as much as anyone.
But when the people of Iowa, and their elected representatives, don't understand what those stations' licensees are contributing to each and every Iowan, when they haven't been told the thousands of stories about those benefits -- and the relationship of sabbaticals to those benefits -- we can also say that "a statewide radio network is also a terrible thing to waste."
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
