Danielle McLaughlin
Americans watched the first three days of impeachment hearings unfold this week, a historic event not seen since 1998, when Bill Clinton was impeached in connection with his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Donald Trump is the fourth US president to be the subject of a formal House of Representatives impeachment investigation. This dubious honour leaves him joined forever in the annals of US presidential history with Andrew Johnson, who was impeached in 1868 but not removed from office; Richard Nixon, who resigned in 1974 before he could be formally impeached; and Bill Clinton, who, like Johnson, was impeached but not removed.
Because it is the closest in time, a comparison with the Clinton impeachment seems natural.
Clinton was also seen by the Washington ‘‘establishment’’ as a rough and uncouth stranger, the difference being that his sins were his Arkansas drawl and the folksy people he brought to the nation’s halls of power. Fox News, CNN and MSNBC were staking out their turf in the late ’90s, their 24-hour cycle entirely suited to the drawn-out drama of congressional testimony.
The underlying conduct isn’t comparable. Clinton was accused of perjury and obstruction of justice in the coverup of his affair with the 20-year old White House intern.
As for Trump, impeachment articles will not be announced (if at all) until the end of the inquiry. They are all but certain to allege an abuse of power connected to withholding military aid to Ukraine for personal political benefit, and obstruction of justice connected to his refusal to provide documents or witnesses to Congress.
Their media strategy also diverges. The Clinton White House never officially commented on the impeachment proceedings (although Clinton surrogates made the rounds on cable TV). The Trump White House is waging a war on impeachment through official channels as well as media and social media, and fundraising off it ahead of the general election.
The less likely, but perhaps better, comparison as it relates to the underlying conduct is with Johnson. He was a Democrat, the vice-president to Republican President Abraham Lincoln, and assumed the presidency after Lincoln was shot just 42 days into his second term.
Although they were elected on a unity ticket as the Civil War came to a close, his views on reconstruction proved to be very different from those of Lincoln and the so-called ‘‘Radical Republicans’’ – members of Lincoln’s party who wanted to impose racial equality under law, and root out systemic racism in the institutions of society and government, particularly in the South.
Hewing to his ‘‘Southern Democrat’’ roots and principles, Johnson did not share Lincoln’s or the Republicans’ belief that African-Americans were capable of self-government. ‘‘Everyone would and must admit that the white race is superior to the black,’’ he opined.
In order to contain Johnson, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act in 1867, which required Senate approval before any president could remove a cabinet member. The law was passed to protect Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, the sole Radical Republican member of Johnson’s cabinet.
In early 1868, Johnson fired Stanton, and the House voted to impeach him. He was accused of violating the Tenure of Office Act, and of bringing disgrace to the office of the presidency with his outrageous conduct and racist rhetoric.
Like Trump, Johnson was not afraid of inflammatory language. Unlike Trump, he was born in abject poverty, and was never educated.
Like Trump, the conduct at the heart of Johnson’s impeachment concerned the scope of presidential power: he argued that the Tenure of Office Act was an unconstitutional limit on his presidential power to appoint his own cabinet. Trump argues that he may hold up aid to Ukraine (or any country), and hire or fire the US ambassador to Ukraine (or any other ambassador), for any reason.
Johnson’s defence centred around his intent in firing Stanton. Trump’s defence team is gearing up to make the same case: that he did not hold up aid, or fire an ambassador, or send his lawyer to Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden because it helped him politically. But rather, because he was rooting out corruption in the former Soviet state.
Nearly 14 million people tuned in on Wednesday to watch the first day of hearings. In sharp contrast, just 1000 tickets were available for each day of Johnson’s Senate trial. Media and social media are a megaphone for Trump that Johnson never had, and Trump has used them skilfully.
That is, until yesterday, when the president tweeted disparagingly about the former US amabassord to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, as she testified before Congress: ‘‘Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavourably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a US President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.’’
It was witness intimidation. And it was particularly shocking considering that the president’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, had directed a campaign of harassment toward the ambassador in the months before she was fired. It was also, perhaps, a new article of impeachment, generated in real time.
It may have been designed to rile up Trump’s base and impugn Yovanovitch. It may have been an act of defensive anger. Either way, one day this president may wish that his social media megaphone, unlike Johnson’s, was not pocket-sized and capable of reaching millions in real time – including into the chamber of Congress, where articles of impeachment against him would soon be decided.
Danielle McLaughlin is the Sunday Star-Times’ US correspondent. She is a lawyer, author, and political and legal commentator, appearing frequently on US and New Zealand TV and radio. She is also an ambassador for #ChampionWomen, which aims to encourage respectful, diverse, and thoughtful conversations. Follow Danielle on Twitter at @MsDMcLaughlin.