Post#: 343-18 – Words: 1286 – Audio: N/A
Well, obviously the word impeachment comes to mind, but…..
Depending on which side of the issue (the Trump issue) you support, so goes your feelings one way or the other with your various justifications. Given I started this blog following his inauguration you can pretty much add me to that list of disgruntled Americans who supported impeachment the day he came into office. My justifications were his revelations of how unqualified in all respects he was for the office during the campaign, along with the mysteries surrounding potential emolument violations, whether it was with Russia or domestically making money off the government; he never divorced himself from his ownership of his businesses; simply suspending day-to-day operation only. For me that fits “high crimes and misdemeanors” quite well. But I am not part of the process.
Here’s the little quirk Trump supporters seem to conveniently forget when it comes to impeachment proceedings. The impeachment process has NOTHING to do with juris prudence, court of law, or right of habeus corpus. Most importantly it has NOTHING to do with the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”. As much as we love and will die for that precept as it relates to our personal Constitutional freedoms, the Founding Fathers designed it to be essentially a kind of “personnel hearing” about job performance. No one gets legally charged with any crime in the impeachment process, no one receives capital punishment or incarceration (jail time) as a result of being impeached. It’s strictly about job performance. The “high crimes and misdemeanors” clause is indeed a bit vague yet is defined one way as follows from past applications…
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, and tax evasion. Wiki, HERE
The Founding Fathers also had some issues debating the final product but regardless who defined what, the process was to apply the non-legal applications of performance and adherence to oath, and not to define criminal guilt. In theory a sitting President could be impeached for picking his nose in public. Obviously the process between the House and the Senate are there to prevent that level of pettiness.
In anyone’s given workplace there are some actions that will get you fired and kicked off the premises before lunchtime without any recourse to whatever defense you might conjure up. Those are the so-called “firing offenses”, where the typical progressive disciplinary process is by-passed. Things like theft of property, assault/threats to others, etc. where the offense is so serious that the verbal-written-termination time frame is unacceptable. In other words, your employer considers you such a risk to the business and/or other employees that they just want you gone, off the premises, post haste. Now, in some cases there may be a hearing to determine a level of infraction and assign who “infracted”.. but an employee’s right of guilt or innocence does not always result in continued employment.
In the case of impeachment the process itself offers a president to clear his/her name through convincing the members of the House and Senate to vote in his/her behalf following a presentation of the specific accusations and any evidence to support or discredit the charges. A resulting vote assigns whether a president should be removed from office… or in the terms of common man… fired. The vote does not assign criminal guilt. Largely, the vote is political and voting one way or the other on impeachment is not one bit tied to some guilt or innocence of any charges proven one way or the other. There is no “preponderance of the evidence presented” that your vote should go one way or the other.
So what is a curious observation is when the TV talking heads or even Trump supporters in real life and BlogWorld want to fire back, “Well please explain exactly what specific high crimes and misdemeanors Trump is guilty of having done!”, thinking they will be ready to defend Trump regardless what I dredge up for a reason.. and citing the all-purpose, “In this country a person is innocent until proven guilty. Has Trump been tried for any crime in which he was found guilty? There.. you know nothing, you anti-Trump putz!”
Well, fact is (and I know Conservatives avoid facts), it’s not up to me to assign guilt… I am only observing performance shortcomings. Remember the criteria?
“ …perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, and tax evasion.”
Heck, pick one, any one. It only takes one. You don’t have to wait for smoking guns on real criminal offenses being revealed. Impeachment or impeachable offenses do not require a criminal offense.
The Reality of Politics
Everything in D.C. is all about politics… and most certainly that would include any effort to try and introduce impeachment elements. The politics of the Congressional Republicans indicate that they are placing some value to the idea of their perception of “impeachable offenses” as having to be reflective of criminal charges against Trump when that’s not true at all. Maybe they have to cater to their base who is likely not familiar with the impeachment process and they think crimes have to be committed… so they presume conspiracies are alive and well to make Trump look bad like a criminal. In the end we are just gobbling up time to allow Congressional Republicans to sleep at night by waiting around for Mueller’s report to assign criminal “participation” (since it’s likely Mueller cannot indict a sitting president).
The other question regarding impeachment is the effect on the public should the process start in the House anytime soon.. presumably soon in January with the new House session. How will impeachment be received is anyone’s guess. I’ve been predicting that Trump will fight any effort to remove him, and that will include rhetoric and Tweets to incite his base to “strike back”.. and some nutcases will take that literally.
Frankly, I’d put that on some backburner for when he leaves office if the desire is there. The issue is that he needs to be removed from office now using any impeachable criteria on the list. But for the sake of argument.. I am not too sure indicting a sitting President is such a good precedent anyway. For one reason, unless you can attach the VP taking over during the President’s trial, fighting some indictment is going to take a lot of presidential time away from the office.. and that’s not good for running the country by any means. It’s going to be bad enough that Trump will fight any impeachment and it will consume his time. Although one could argue that it’s better that he’s consumed with impeachment fighting than blundering through trying to run the country for the next couple years; impeachment will keep him occupied elsewhere.
Impending Doom For The Dear Leader
Today begins yet another week in Washington and we’ve all come to anticipate each week to be some milestone of wacky events that will soon make its way up to Trump. This last week was a truly ominous chain of events against him. I’m contending that the House need not wait for the Mueller report to begin taking action. But one thing seems for sure.. when the Mueller report is finally released it will very likely be the coup de’grace blow for Trump trying to avoid impeachment.
Fasten your seatbelts America!
My other sites… if you’re interested…