Clinton’s no precedent
The Congress needs to take the American constitutional standard seriously and focus on abuses of presidential authority, like in Nixon’s case, to impeach Trump.
IN Washington, a new argument is gaining traction: The impeachment of Bill Clinton is a strong precedent for the impeachment of Donald Trump.
It’s a bad argument, unfair to both presidents. The impeachment clause is a direct outgrowth of the American Revolution. The constitutional phrase “high crimes and misdemeanours” refers to egregious abuses of official authority. It means that “the people are the King”.
If a president tramples on civil liberties, punishes dissenters or pays no attention to the separation of powers, he can be impeached. If a president shoplifts, fails to pay his taxes or cheats on his wife, he is not impeachable. Violations of the criminal law are not necessarily a legitimate basis for impeachment. And a president can be impeached for abusing his authority, even if he has not committed any crime.
In the Watergate era, when President Richard Nixon faced an impeachment proceeding (and resigned before a formal vote), both Democrats and Republicans took the constitutional standard seriously. They acted with dignity. They focused on abuses of presidential authority, as through Nixon’s efforts to undermine the electoral process and to use the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for political purposes and in violation of people’s constitutional rights.
By contrast, the impeachment of Bill Clinton was politically motivated – and did not come close to meeting the constitutional standard. True, Clinton was alleged (among other things) to have perjured himself and to have obstructed justice in connection with the sexual harassment suit brought by Paula Jones. Those are serious allegations. But they are not the kind of wrongdoing that triggers the impeachment clause.
Invoking the Clinton precedent as a basis for impeaching Trump, Bret Stephens of the New York Times approvingly quotes Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who said in 1998 that Clinton “lied under oath numerous times, that he tampered with evidence, that he conspired to present false testimony to a court of law. We believe he assaulted our legal system in every way”.
Maybe so, but Clinton’s conduct is not what the impeachment clause is about. To use the Clinton impeachment as a precedent for Trump would compound a grave constitutional blunder. That’s something for both Democrats and Republicans to avoid.
If Trump had affairs and arranged to pay women to keep quiet, he would not be impeachable for that reason.
The real problem for him lies elsewhere. If a president “procured his appointment” through “corruption” – well, that is one thing that the impeachment clause is for.
It follows that if any president conspired with a foreign nation to obtain his office, the clause would be triggered. It also follows that the real issue, right now, is the admission by Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, that he made payments to two women in violation of federal campaign laws “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office”. To make matters far worse, he did so “for the principal purpose of influencing the election”.
From the constitutional point of view, Cohen’s admission, and not the supposed Clinton precedent, is the right focus.
Trump’s comment that the stock market would crash if he’s impeached, meanwhile, has the causality backward: Without a stock market crash, it’s unlikely he’ll ever be successfully impeached. Only after or in the middle of a crash would the political environment change enough to get Republicans to abandon him and impeach him.
But if this scenario were to unfold, an actual impeachment would probably end up being a bullish development, not a bearish one. For evidence look to the slow end of the Nixon administration.
In January 1973, the month of the beginning of Nixon’s second term, the S&P 500 was at a record high and his net approval rating was near its highest level as well.
This was seven months after the Watergate break-in. Unfortunately for the president, core inflation was about to surge, which ultimately led to the unravelling of his presidency.
By the end of 1973 it had risen at a rate of 4.7%. The S&P 500 fell more than 17% that year. Nixon’s approval rating, which was in the upper 60s at the start of the year, fell to around 30%. By the summer of 1974, consumer price inflation had increased by 8%. The S&P 500 had fallen almost an additional 19% year to date. By that time, Nixon’s approval ratings had fallen to the mid-20s. He resigned from the office of the presidency on Aug 9, 1974.
While the stock market continued falling for another eight weeks after his resignation, that ended up being a generational bottom. Never again have stock prices fallen so low. Core inflation peaked in February 1975, ending the recession of 1974-75, giving markets and the economy a reprieve.
Economies, markets and presidential administrations don’t repeat over time, but a possible Trump impeachment would probably play out in a similar fashion. With a relatively strong economy and booming markets, his overall approval rating has been steady in the low 40s, with Republicans largely sticking with him. As long as the economy and markets stay strong, that’s unlikely to change, no matter what comes out of the Mueller investigation or anything else involving his administration. But if the economy and markets do turn down, well, that’s when Trump’s luck runs out.
Only after a significant weakening would Republicans potentially abandon him. And only then would conditions be ripe for impeachment. And if Trump is kicked out of office, expect the stock market to bounce – not crash. When Republicans are ready to abandon him, we’d probably be closer to the trough of that downturn than to its beginning peak. So, the impeachment would reflect an ageing downturn, and the period after the impeachment would overlap significantly with the inevitable recovery.
Naturally, that won’t stop Trump’s successor from claiming credit. — Bloomberg