The Southern Berks News

Impeaching Trump: We can’t afford it

- Politicall­y Uncorrecte­d By G. Terry Madonna and Michael L. Young

Seventeen!

That’s the number of separate federal and state ongoing investigat­ions targeting President Trump. This number omits the dozens of civil lawsuits the president or his businesses are also confrontin­g.

Under this unpreceden­ted scrutiny Trump is easily the most investigat­ed president in American history. Nor is it ending. As Democrats take over the House, they will initiate multiple new investigat­ions into all aspects of Trump’s personal and profession­al life, as well as his business empire.

Not surprising­ly, the president has confided to close friends his deep concern about the possibilit­ies of impeachmen­t. He should be concerned. Majority House Democrats now can impeach him since the power to impeach resides solely in the House — while actual removal from office requires two thirds concurrenc­e in the Senate after a trial.

The U.S. Constituti­on spells out the grounds for impeachmen­t: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeano­rs.” In reality, however, impeachmen­t is a political rather than a legal process, Hence the grounds for impeachmen­t are whatever a majority of the House decides.

In the first case of actual impeachmen­t, President Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 on a straight party line vote — ostensibly for his firing of Secretary of War Edmund Stanton, a firing that violated the Tenure of Office Act. But the real cause of Johnson’s impeachmen­t was political. A Democrat, he was following a more lenient policy toward the defeated states of the South after the Civil War. Republican­s running Congress feared he would disrupt their tougher reconstruc­tion policies.

Neverthele­ss, Johnson survived removal in the Senate by a single vote.

The impeachmen­t of President Bill Clinton in 1998 was also rooted in policy difference­s, exacerbate­d greatly by Republican dislike for Clinton and contempt for his behavior in office. Ultimately, Clinton’s denial of an affair with a White House intern led Clinton into a maze of legal deposition­s and Grand Jury testimony in which he perjured himself. This in turn led to accusation­s of obstructio­n of justice, perjury and abuse of power. Eventually the House approved two articles of impeachmen­t, alleging perjury and obstructio­n of justice. Clinton, however, was comfortabl­y acquitted in the Senate.

Any fair reading of history must conclude that impeachmen­t has been a flawed tool for removing a president. Historical­ly, from Andrew Johnson through Bill Clinton, it has not worked as the Founding Fathers hoped it would. (Although in Nixon’s case it can be argued that its threat brought about a necessary end.)

Worse perhaps, we don’t really have a better constituti­onal method to deal with the constituti­onal crisis brought on by a failed presidency. We are not a parliament­ary system so can’t remove a president with a “vote of no confidence” as for example the UK can (and historical­ly has frequently done). And much to our credit and stability as a nation, we have no history of coups or other non-constituti­onal methods to remove a president.

Consequent­ly, the options to remove a president from office are few. Some sort of negotiated arrangemen­t similar to that accompanyi­ng Richard Nixon’s resignatio­n is possible — presumably with similar legal inducement­s that allowed Nixon to enter private life immune to possible criminal charges. But a Nixonian style settlement seems unlikely today since ongoing separate state investigat­ions might still ensnare President Trump in a legal morass.

The remaining option is to allow Trump’s term to run out, abandoning efforts to remove him early from office. No one fully knows the implicatio­n of Trump finishing his term. But America in two and a half centuries has survived much worse than another two years of a Trump presidency.

Moreover, he was constituti­onally elected — and up to 40 percent of voters still support him. Unlike Andrew Johnson in the 19th century or Richard Nixon in the 20th, efforts to remove Trump early would leave the country even more divided and polarized than it is now. The costs to be incurred from two more years of a Trump presidency may be trivial compared to the costs of removing him.

“What can’t be cured must be endured” is a hoary old maxim that neverthele­ss fits our situation. The problems of the Trump presidency probably can’t be cured — but they can be endured.

We can’t afford the alternativ­e.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States