Even before Lady Liberty began lifting her "lamp beside the golden door", America had lit the torch of freedom, eventually providing a path out of the darkness of wars over fascism, communism and the sovereignty of Kings. We also made heroic efforts to feed a hungry world, educate the illiterate and welcomed waves of "huddled masses yearning to be free."
The history of our actions at home were, like most countries, not always so illustrious, to wit: We killed 620,000 of our own people in a civil war over race. Labor strife was the cause of bloody encounters like the 1886 Haymarket Massacre in Chicago and the government sponsored suppression of miners in the Colorado Labor Wars in 1903 and 1904. And our genocidal attempts to obliterate Native Americans remains a dark stain on our history.
However, our history shows how we have overcome our differences, eventually recognizing the worth and needs of our uniquely diverse population with bipartisan legislation and a strong judicial system. We trusted our government.
But we lost that political virginity in Vietnam, when we learned that our government lied to us for fifteen years as they led us into a no-win civil war, costing the lives of 57,000 Americans and 3 million Vietnamese. And, of course, Bush 43 managed to convince us that war was necessary in Iraq to remove Saddam's atomic bombs, which simply did not exist.
From 2000 to 2015, despite a stubborn streak of political polarity and a Great Recession, Americans once again returned to a degree of civility with a growing economy, an urban renaissance, and a higher degree of social connection to each other via the internet.
Today, we are once again a deeply divided nation. In a mere two years time, Trump has split the country into three tribes. One tribe thinks Trump is the greatest president ever, another is ambivalent or simply don't care about politics in general, while a third group views the president as a child-man with a narcissistic ego who often chooses to ignore or belittle our long standing international allies while gutting the agencies that are the framework of American democracy. This writer is in the latter camp, as I noted in my last blog.
The calls for impeachment are growing inside the corridors of power and in the streets of a thousand cities. The source of impeachment, the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, was put in place in 1967, in the wake of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It details the succession procedure should the president die, resign or have an “inability to discharge the powers and duties” of the office.
Section 4 of the amendment allows for the vice president and a majority of the executive branch to provide a written declaration to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives when they determine that the president is unable to perform his duties. Congress must then decide with a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers that the president is unfit for office.
"Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."
"Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office."
The amendment has been used six times, three times during the Watergate scandal under President Richard Nixon and three times when presidents have undergone colonoscopies, once involving Ronald Reagan and twice for George W. Bush. But Section 4 has never been invoked and never seriously proposed for the type of situation now surrounding Trump. Let us look at the pro and con arguments.
- “It’s frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write and people should want to look into it.”
- “Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!”
- “With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!”
- “Why Isn’t the Senate Intel Committee looking into the Fake News Networks in OUR country to see why so much of our news is just made up-FAKE!”
Democrats in Congress click here has chimed in with five more reasons for impeachment including: obstruction of justice by firing FBI director James Comey, violation of the emolument clause because of the profits flowing into his companies since his election, repeatedly undermining the court system, and provoking racial and ethnic divisions. Of course, no list of possible impeachable offenses would be complete without the Russian Connection saga which prompted an ongoing probe by Special Counsel Robert Muller into the possibility of collusion and money laundering.
CON: In October, Briana Renix wrote an article in Current Affairs magazine which outlined the case for not impeaching Trump: "Surely, somewhere in Mueller's investigation of Russian election interference, or somewhere in the complex international entanglements of Trump's business empire, an...impeachment worthy offense can be identified." However, she does not advocate for impeachment because of her fears of a Mike Pence presidency:
"The first and most important consequence of a Trump removal is a Pence presidency. Some commentators are sanguine about this outcome, regarding Pence as a run-of-the-mill Republican politician who will likely be a steady hand at the wheel. In a Chicago Tribune article... Francis Wilkinson writes that “the Indiana Republican is as dull and serviceable a politician as Trump is bizarre and broken,” adding that “I’m consistently perplexed when others don’t share my enthusiasm for the humdrum Hoosier.
But we’d be stupid to underestimate the amount of damage a 'humdrum' conservative can do...the fact that he is cool, collected, and apparently on more or less good terms with his Republican colleagues—make him, in other senses, much more dangerous than Trump.
A recent New Yorker profile of Pence...describes him as “the corporate right’s inside man,” [and] a savvy and ambitious politician. He was the Koch Brothers’ anointed candidate before Trump’s [eventual] nomination, and a prime specimen of the sort of heartless conservative fundamentalism that was, prior to the Trump era, viewed as the greatest enemy to left values. ... Pence has made no particular secret of despising the LGBT community: Trump recently made a joke to the effect that Pence wants to “hang” all gay people, which had a chilling [kind] of truth to it...[and] during his decade in Congress, had a consistent track record of voting against environmental legislation, anti-pollution measures, and clean energy. He has been centrally involved in efforts to repeal Obama Care.... As governor of Indiana, Pence moved to ban the resettlement of Syrian refugees, long before Trump had proposed his Muslim Ban. Given these facts, do we think Pence is likely to continue the same policies that have made Trump’s presidency reprehensible? It seems almost certain. Will Pence, by virtue of his more amicable relationship with [Republicans], ..., and the goodwill he will buy from Democrats in Congress by presenting a civil... contrast to Trump, be more likely to actually implement these dangerous policies successfully? This also seems highly plausible."
"The first and most important consequence of a Trump removal is a Pence presidency. Some commentators are sanguine about this outcome, regarding Pence as a run-of-the-mill Republican politician who will likely be a steady hand at the wheel. In a Chicago Tribune article... Francis Wilkinson writes that “the Indiana Republican is as dull and serviceable a politician as Trump is bizarre and broken,” adding that “I’m consistently perplexed when others don’t share my enthusiasm for the humdrum Hoosier.
But we’d be stupid to underestimate the amount of damage a 'humdrum' conservative can do...the fact that he is cool, collected, and apparently on more or less good terms with his Republican colleagues—make him, in other senses, much more dangerous than Trump.
A recent New Yorker profile of Pence...describes him as “the corporate right’s inside man,” [and] a savvy and ambitious politician. He was the Koch Brothers’ anointed candidate before Trump’s [eventual] nomination, and a prime specimen of the sort of heartless conservative fundamentalism that was, prior to the Trump era, viewed as the greatest enemy to left values. ... Pence has made no particular secret of despising the LGBT community: Trump recently made a joke to the effect that Pence wants to “hang” all gay people, which had a chilling [kind] of truth to it...[and] during his decade in Congress, had a consistent track record of voting against environmental legislation, anti-pollution measures, and clean energy. He has been centrally involved in efforts to repeal Obama Care.... As governor of Indiana, Pence moved to ban the resettlement of Syrian refugees, long before Trump had proposed his Muslim Ban. Given these facts, do we think Pence is likely to continue the same policies that have made Trump’s presidency reprehensible? It seems almost certain. Will Pence, by virtue of his more amicable relationship with [Republicans], ..., and the goodwill he will buy from Democrats in Congress by presenting a civil... contrast to Trump, be more likely to actually implement these dangerous policies successfully? This also seems highly plausible."
On the conservative side of the argument, the venerable National Review Magazine published an article written by Andrew McCarthy in June which shows little concern about impeachment: "This is a very straightforward argument. First, Trump may not be prosecuted for obstructing investigations because he did not act corruptly – he had the authority to take the actions he did; and these actions, even if one finds them inappropriate, were not unreasonable. Second, Trump may not be impeached because his actions, even if one finds them inappropriate, do not approach the abuse-of-power predicate for high crimes and misdemeanors. But it is not enough to make the first part of the argument and pretend that the second need not be addressed. If Team Trump is to defend the president [they] must concede that he is not above the law, and that the Constitution holds him accountable."
For this writer, the reality of impeachment proceedings occuring any time soon is highly unlikely because If Trump were to object to this action, the decision would be left up to a two-thirds vote in Congress, and Democrats are in the minority.
There are those who are busy gathering petitions for impeachment, and the first amendment guarantees that right. As this post is written, the well publicized petition by Tom Seyers click here has almost 5 million signatures for impeachment. However, it is important to remember that people can petition the President to do whatever they want, but there is no way to force him to honor the petition.
Further, there is no constitutional or current legal process for the people to remove a president who has not been impeached and convicted by Congress. And, with my tongue deeply tucked in my cheek, I would add that petitioners need to ensure that Trump does not get away by tweeting "This is a FAKE PETITION!"
As the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller III has progressed in recent weeks, Republicans have responded with attacks on Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele the FBI and the Justice Department.
Here's my take on the surprising (and, in my opinion, brave) release by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal) of the 321 page transcript of the testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee by Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simmons on January 9th:
The transcript reveals that Fusion's policy has always been to require their clients to sign contracts which insures that their investigations will be independent and free from any control by clients. The pages show that Steele is and has always been a man with a proven history of honorable relations with the FBI, and came forth with his dossier draft because he was alarmed about Russian influence on America's elections and the possible blackmail of Trump (the FBI didn't initially consider Steele's drafts since it had leads of its own.)
Sadly, similar actions have become part of the Republicans who have majority control over the Senate and House Intelligence Committees looking into Russian collusion in American elections, which is continuing unabated. A report issued on January 10 by the Democratic staff on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, alleges a range of aggressive Russian behavior abroad that employs military invasions, cyberattacks, disinformation, support for fringe political groups and the manipulation of energy resources, organized crime and corruption across Europe. The also warned that "if the United States fails to work with urgency to address this...threat, the regime in Moscow will become further emboldened. It will continue to develop and refine its arsenal to use on democracies around the world, including against U.S. elections in 2018 and 2020."
There have long been whispers about Trump’s property sales to wealthy Russians, and his hundreds of millions in credit from Deutsche Bank, made just as the bank was conducting a massive Russian money-laundering operation.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s separate investigation seems to already be tracking the money trail. In December, German newspaper Handelsblatt and other US outlets reported that Mueller had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank for information on dealings “linked to the Trumps.” Trump’s legal team have denied that a subpoena has been issued, but the publications stood by their stories (the Wall Street Journal corrected (paywall) its report to say it related to “people or entities close to” Trump, rather than Trump or his family directly.)
The denizens of Foggy Bottom may try ignoring charges of obstruction and collusion. But money laundering is a crime which, if proven, is legally impossible to deny or sweep under the proverbial rug. The constitution does not say whether a sitting President can be indicted. Perhaps the Supreme Court would issue a decision to support such an indictment, perhaps not. More importantly, would members of Congress still support a man convicted of fraud? Would President Pence give him amnesty?
In summation, there simply is no exit from the reality of Trump hanging on until 2020. Equally implausible, in my opinion is the possibility of his reelection, especially considering the Democratic "Blue Wave" widely anticipated in the midterm elections in 2018.
This writer is heartened by the millions of Americans who have risen to condemn this presidency from every state in the nation. The Women's March Against Trump on the day after Trump's inaugural, dwarfed the numbers of Trump supporters in Washington D.C., according to National Park Service's aerial photographs. Millions of people across the world also joined their ranks.
No comments:
Post a Comment