Making a Case for Impeachment
By Steve Zolno
Author of The Future of Democracy
The impeachment process is stated simply by the US Constitution. It requires that “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors (Article II, Section 4).” The Constitution does not state that impeachment only can be brought for a single crime.
There have been a number of US Presidents accused of crimes. Two were impeached in the House of Representatives, but they were not removed from office by the Senate: (1) Andrew Johnson, in 1868, for firing a cabinet member without the Senate’s approval (this no longer is a law), and (2) Bill Clinton, in 1998, for lying to Congress. Richard Nixon resigned in1974, before likely impeachment and removal, when his role in the Watergate burglary was exposed.
Despite presidential actions that many considered illegal, impeachment rarely has been invoked. Andrew Jackson forced the evacuation of 60,000 Native Americans in 1831 from North Carolina to Oklahoma in defiance of the Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (the right of defendants to go before a judge) during the Civil War, which was ruled illegal by the courts, but later approved by Congress. Ronald Reagan was investigated in 1986 by Congress for the Iran-Contra Scandal, in which (he later admitted) weapons were sold to Iran to raise money for a Central American revolution in violation of the law. Presidents have engaged in acts of war without the required approval of Congress, including the invasion of Mexico under Woodrow Wilson in 1914, and the attack on Libya under Barack Obama in 2011. But in each of the above incidents, the president did not act for personal gain.
Impeachment is the reversal of a legal election or appointment of a public official, and therefore only should be invoked in case of clear criminal behavior. The Constitution prescribes that impeachment and/or removal should be for treason, bribery, or corrupt acts. Removal for a pattern of criminal activity therefore is justified.
In the current investigation, it would be short-sighted to bring articles of impeachment for only one criminal offense if there is a likelihood of multiple illegal acts. If a pattern of corruption is suspected, all allegations of law-breaking should be part of the investigation. Otherwise, many will see acquittal on one count as exoneration on all. No timeline should be imposed on an investigation that may be prolonged because of long witness lists or non-cooperation.
There are numerous potential violations of the Constitution that should be considered in this case: (1) Paying off prostitutes to silence them by the president before the 2016 election in violation of campaign financing laws (his lawyer, Michael Cohen, was sentenced for this and stated he was directed by the president to break the law), (2) Violating the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8), which forbids officials from taking payments from foreign governments without consent of Congress (the president has taken numerous payments from foreign officials who have stayed in his hotels), (3) Obstruction of Justice, for which ten examples are enumerated in the Mueller Report (Robert Mueller stated he could investigate but not bring an indictment against a sitting president), (4) Bribery of the President of Ukraine by withholding funds as part of a demand that he interfere in the US election by announcing an investigation of Trump’s political rival, (5) Funneling money from a charity for personal use (the Trump Foundation was forced to close and pay a $2 million fine), (6) Possible corruption by the president based on indictments of associates for funneling illegal contributions to his campaign.
Another area that may justify investigation is whether anyone – or any country – is helping the Trump organization stay afloat amidst large losses at his properties, which may point to foreign influence. Obtaining the president’s taxes would likely clarify this. All modern presidents have released their taxes. The investigation should not conclude until this information is obtained, or the courts deny access.
The impeachment process should make clear to this and future presidents that they are expected to act within the bounds of the law, as is true of all citizens. Anything less than a full investigation of all possible illegal violations leading to impeachment, conviction – or exoneration if justified – sets a precedent for future US presidents that they will not be expected to follow the law.
Those who bring charges should consider all evidence relevant to this inquiry. Investigations of other allegations relating to it, but not involving the president, should be brought separately. The impeachment process should not be based on personal like or dislike of the President or his political party, but solely on evidence of alleged crimes that threaten our democracy.
Steve can be reached at thefutureofdemocracy.net.
Author of The Future of Democracy
The impeachment process is stated simply by the US Constitution. It requires that “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors (Article II, Section 4).” The Constitution does not state that impeachment only can be brought for a single crime.
There have been a number of US Presidents accused of crimes. Two were impeached in the House of Representatives, but they were not removed from office by the Senate: (1) Andrew Johnson, in 1868, for firing a cabinet member without the Senate’s approval (this no longer is a law), and (2) Bill Clinton, in 1998, for lying to Congress. Richard Nixon resigned in1974, before likely impeachment and removal, when his role in the Watergate burglary was exposed.
Despite presidential actions that many considered illegal, impeachment rarely has been invoked. Andrew Jackson forced the evacuation of 60,000 Native Americans in 1831 from North Carolina to Oklahoma in defiance of the Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (the right of defendants to go before a judge) during the Civil War, which was ruled illegal by the courts, but later approved by Congress. Ronald Reagan was investigated in 1986 by Congress for the Iran-Contra Scandal, in which (he later admitted) weapons were sold to Iran to raise money for a Central American revolution in violation of the law. Presidents have engaged in acts of war without the required approval of Congress, including the invasion of Mexico under Woodrow Wilson in 1914, and the attack on Libya under Barack Obama in 2011. But in each of the above incidents, the president did not act for personal gain.
Impeachment is the reversal of a legal election or appointment of a public official, and therefore only should be invoked in case of clear criminal behavior. The Constitution prescribes that impeachment and/or removal should be for treason, bribery, or corrupt acts. Removal for a pattern of criminal activity therefore is justified.
In the current investigation, it would be short-sighted to bring articles of impeachment for only one criminal offense if there is a likelihood of multiple illegal acts. If a pattern of corruption is suspected, all allegations of law-breaking should be part of the investigation. Otherwise, many will see acquittal on one count as exoneration on all. No timeline should be imposed on an investigation that may be prolonged because of long witness lists or non-cooperation.
There are numerous potential violations of the Constitution that should be considered in this case: (1) Paying off prostitutes to silence them by the president before the 2016 election in violation of campaign financing laws (his lawyer, Michael Cohen, was sentenced for this and stated he was directed by the president to break the law), (2) Violating the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8), which forbids officials from taking payments from foreign governments without consent of Congress (the president has taken numerous payments from foreign officials who have stayed in his hotels), (3) Obstruction of Justice, for which ten examples are enumerated in the Mueller Report (Robert Mueller stated he could investigate but not bring an indictment against a sitting president), (4) Bribery of the President of Ukraine by withholding funds as part of a demand that he interfere in the US election by announcing an investigation of Trump’s political rival, (5) Funneling money from a charity for personal use (the Trump Foundation was forced to close and pay a $2 million fine), (6) Possible corruption by the president based on indictments of associates for funneling illegal contributions to his campaign.
Another area that may justify investigation is whether anyone – or any country – is helping the Trump organization stay afloat amidst large losses at his properties, which may point to foreign influence. Obtaining the president’s taxes would likely clarify this. All modern presidents have released their taxes. The investigation should not conclude until this information is obtained, or the courts deny access.
The impeachment process should make clear to this and future presidents that they are expected to act within the bounds of the law, as is true of all citizens. Anything less than a full investigation of all possible illegal violations leading to impeachment, conviction – or exoneration if justified – sets a precedent for future US presidents that they will not be expected to follow the law.
Those who bring charges should consider all evidence relevant to this inquiry. Investigations of other allegations relating to it, but not involving the president, should be brought separately. The impeachment process should not be based on personal like or dislike of the President or his political party, but solely on evidence of alleged crimes that threaten our democracy.
Steve can be reached at thefutureofdemocracy.net.