At Time Robert Ray expresses an interpretation of the House’s power of impeachment that will strike many as just wrong:
So while it is fashionable at the moment for some to argue that President Trump is removable from office simply if it is proved that he abused the power of his office during his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, the Constitution requires more. To ignore the requirement of proving that a crime was committed is to sidestep the constitutional design as well as the lessons of history. A well-founded article of impeachment therefore must allege both that a crime has been committed and that such crime constitutes an abuse of the President’s office.
The problem for those pushing impeachment is that there appears to be insufficient evidence to prove that Trump committed a crime. Half the country at present does seem prepared to conclude, on the basis of the summary of the Trump-Zelensky call released by the White House on Sept. 25, that Trump at least raised the prospect of an unlawful quid pro quo. The theory seems to be that Trump proposed an exchange of something of personal benefit to himself in return for an official act by the U.S. government. On one side of that alleged quid pro quo would be the public announcement of an investigation by Ukraine into a rival presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, and a member of Biden’s family. On the other: the release of temporarily withheld foreign aid, including military assistance.
or at least terribly inconvenient. The view that a “high crime or misdemeanor” is anything the House says it might be is pragmatic and was first noted by Gerald Ford during the Watergate hearings. It is pragmatic but it may not be legal and it is unlikely to rally many Senate Republicans to the House’s cause.
That the Constitutional formula may have an actual meaning is the very reason that ever since the story of the Ukraine phone call broke I have been saying that it was incumbent on the House to define precisely what they objected to in the president’s words and actions. I don’t believe they can without condemning presidential negotiation with foreign heads of state as such, something clearly within the scope of presidential authority. Should it be illegal for a president to ask something of political benefit to himself in negotiations? Of personal but intangible benefit? How would that not make the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, for example, an impeachable offense?
My point is: be careful how you answer.
This is where the GOP had to go isn’t it? With so many Trump appointees now appearing to support the claim that Trump was holding back arms until Ukraine announced an investigation it is looking like Trump is guilty. The last line of defense (other than GOP Senators refusing to find him guilty no matter what is found, which is what will really happen) is to say that he did it but it is not a crime, or not one worthy of impeachment.
Should it be legal for a president to tell another country that he will order US troops stationed in their country to help protect a corrupt dictator if they will in return deposit a couple billion dollars into an offshore bank account for him? If you say yes, they you are arguing that a POTUS can do anything free of consequences. If you say no, then you are essentially where we are at present.
Steve
Straw-man.
That’s a tangible. You want to disallow intangible benefits. As I’ve been saying I’d like to see the wording of that.
Winning the presidential election is intangible? Wow!
Steve
Hamilton:
The argument that I am making is that the House should be able to say what it is that illustrates the “perfidy” of this president and that whatever that might be would not apply to every president if the whole truth be known.
“Abuse of power” is a legal term not a political one. In law it requires either a) express violation of a statute or b) proof of corrupt intent. This morning on one of the talking head programs a Democratic Congresswoman touched on this, making a very tenuous argument for corrupt intent. Maybe it was corrupt but, as Mr. Ray points out, proving that takes more than just an assumption. I look forward to more formidable proof of corrupt intent.
My preference would have been that the Congress censure the president and move on rather than engaging in a protracted game of “Now I’ve Got You, You S. O. B.”. They might well have gotten bipartisan support for it. We’ll never know. But as of this writing it looks very much as though the final outcome would have been the same except with bipartisan support. I have seen more than one Republican senator say “we think it’s bad but we don’t think he should be impeached for it” which supports that speculation but, as I say, we’ll never know now.
“The argument that I am making is that the House should be able to say what it is that illustrates the “perfidy†of this president and that whatever that might be would not apply to every president if the whole truth be known.”
I agree the House needs to make a compelling case.
If there’s evidence that other Presidents have done the same thing (used foreign aid to entice/coerce a foreign power to intervene in domestic politics), then I’d like to see that. Until such evidence is presented, the assumption that the charges against Trump would apply to every president “if the whole truth be known” remains an assumption and nothing more.
There is a difference btw/ a crime, and actions taken that are against the law. A President can act unlawfully without committing a crime, but he doesn’t act unlawfully simply because the action is disproved of. A rule of law is what the moderate Republicans wanted in the Johnson impeachment; most Republicans would have impeached him for being a Democrat and they had the advantage of veto-proof majorities so they could pass a law that would snare the President.
The questions I have is what is the source of the President’s authority to hold back military aid authorized by law? Is it authority within that law or another, or is the President claiming discretionary authority as the executive. If the President held back military aid to incentive Ukraine fighting against corruption generally, would that be a legal violation? Would it matter if it was a particular American, like Paul Manafort was specifically referenced? Does it matter if there is reasonable suspicion that Hunter Biden was violating the law?
” If the President held back military aid to incentive Ukraine fighting against corruption generally, would that be a legal violation? ”
There seems to be some debate about whether the President had the authority to hold back the funds for any reason. So Trump may not have had the authority in the first place.
But my own view is that motivation is what makes this different. If President Trump was interested in combatting corruption generally in Ukraine, declared that to be US policy and conditioned aid on progress on that front, then that would be an entirely legitimate motivation, even if he lacked the specific authority to deny this particular package of aid.
But he’s only interested in two very specific things that just happen to be related to his personal political interests. That – at the very least – suggests the motivation is not about the interests of the United States, but is only about his personal interests. President Trump didn’t even bother with a veneer or Potemkin Villiage of legitimacy.
My question is this – if this is acceptable conduct by a President, then what is the limit? How far can a President go in using the significant power of his office – especially in foreign policy – to further his own personal interests – especially domestic political interest?
A President, for example, has complete authority over classified information in the US government. He can declassify or give any secret government information to literally anyone. And, speaking from personal experience, we share classified information with foreign governments all the time – in service of the national interest. Is there really no difference if the reason for sharing information is completely personal? Suppose a President decides to give a foreign power access to our secrets in exchange for something of personal domestic political value only? That would not be illegal because of the President’s plenary authority when it comes to classified information, but it is, IMO, surely impeachable as an abuse of power and a clear failure to uphold the oath of the office. If the oath only matters for statutory violations, then what is the point of it? That’s an extreme example, but what President Trump did differs only in scale.
Were the funds held back? Was it suggested that they might be?
Dave,
We know the aid was held up and several people involved have testified the reason was this quid pro quo. No one in the administration has given a credible alternative reason the aid was delayed. The aid was ready and supposed to be delivered in February.
And it’s not just the military aide, but a diplomatic meeting was also conditioned on opening the Bursima and crowdstrike investigations. The legitimacy conveyed by the United States government to a newly elected foreign leader shouldn’t hinge on that leader promising personal domestic political favors to the sitting President.