Despite efforts to complicate things, the issue of whether President Trump should be impeached and removed from office boils down to the answers to four straightforward questions. These four questions frame an argument for impeachment and removal. It starts with what are hopefully agreed principles, and proceeds based on facts and logic to a proposed all for action.
I invite comments on whether this argument meets the standards for good arguments I set out on this site. I would particularly like to hear if you think I used one of the bad arguments BZL 1-10 that I rail against.
Is it OK for a candidate for President to enlist the help of a foreign state in his or her campaign? The answer to this question should be an unequivocal no. The Founding Fathers expressed grave concern about foreign governments meddling in our elections. The problem is just as serious, and more insidious, now. Foreign interference bypasses federal election laws, and makes then toothless. Yes, Russian interfered in 2016, and yes, Mueller indicted a bunch of Russian individuals and companies, but nothing has come of it, so there is no deterrent for future interference.
Given the ability to support a campaign using dark money, we have no way to prevent another country from partly or totally financing a campaign. Even if there is no express “quid pro quo” we should not have to deal with the possibility that a President may want to “return the favor,” impacting foreign policy, and maybe national security. If we permit other countries to take an active role in selecting our president, it does not take much to imagine candidates favored by the Russians, the Chinese, the Saudis, the North Koreans, and the Israelis squaring off against one another with foreign policy determined by who wins the election. This is exactly what worried the Founding Fathers, though they worried about England and France, not Russia and China.
Under no circumstances should we tolerate, much less invite, foreign interference in our elections. One of the most disturbing aspects of the impeachment fight is the Republicans have shown that they don’t care about election interference, so long as they stand to benefit from it. As a foundational matter, everyone should agree that interference by a foreign government in our elections is wrong.
Did Donald Trump invite a foreign government to interfere in our elections? The answer to this question is clearly yes. We have him on tape inviting Russian interference in 2016, and Chinese interference in 2020. The readout from the July 25 call with President Zelenskiy, approved for release by the White House, shows that President Trump wanted a favor from Ukraine – investigations that would help him and that would damage his leading political rival, Joe Biden. In a press conference, President Trump confirmed that he wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.
There is no serious debate about this. Those who oppose impeachment may disagree about how to characterize the conduct (not bribery, no quid pro quo, no pressure, did not work, etc.) but the record is clear that President Trump invited interference by a foreign government in US elections on multiple occasions, including his dealings with Ukraine during the summer of 2019.
Should President Trump be impeached for his efforts to get Ukraine involved in the 2020 election? Finally, we reach a question about which reasonable people can disagree. But even here, there is fundamental agreement on the legal framework. Four legal scholars, three called by Democrats, one called by Republicans, testified about the law on impeachment. All agreed that impeachment can be appropriate for conduct that is not criminal. All agreed that a “high” crime or misdemeanor is one that involves use of the power of office for personal benefit. Even the Republican witness agreed that if President Trump conditioned the release of aid or an Oval Office visit on help for his campaign, that would be impeachable; he opposed impeachment because he believed that there was not enough evidence to prove that yet, and that the Democrats should wait until the Courts ordered Trump to turn over additional documents.
But weight of the evidence is a matter of judgment. Once more it is indisputable that there is evidence of a quid pro quo — Gordon Sondland’s testimony and Mick Mulvaney’s admission provide direct evidence, and many other witnesses provide circumstantial evidence. On the other hand, the President’s supporters offer an alternative explanation for the hold-up of funds – concern about Ukrainian corruption. They say that the funds were released without a promise of an investigation. They say that President Zelenskiy felt no pressure. Clearly, each side has evidence to offer at a trial.
The logical conclusion is that there should be a trial. In the impeachment process, the trial occurs in the Senate. As the legal experts agreed, the proceeding in the House is akin to a grand jury in a regular criminal proceeding. A grand jury does not decide guilt or innocence; it simply decides if there is enough evidence to go forward to a trial.
In this case, the President’s supporters are in no position to complain about the lack of evidence, because it was the President’s actions that prevented more evidence from being gathered. His denial of the legitimacy of the impeachment inquiry, his refusal to produce any documents in response to subpoena, his efforts to prevent any current or former executive branch employees from testifying to Congress, were directly responsible for the lack of additional evidence. Once again, the evidence on this point is beyond dispute, the President actively and persistently obstructed the Congressional investigation into his behavior. One may disagree whether he should be removed from office for this, but it is clear that obstruction occurred.
Because of clear obstruction of Congress, and because there is evidence that President Trump used the powers of his office to obtain a personal benefit, he should be impeached, so that the Senate can hold a trial on whether he, in fact, did the things that Democrats allege, and whether that conduct merits removal from office. Failure to impeach Trump would make a statement that the conduct he engaged in is entirely permissible.
Should Donald Trump be removed from office as President? Once again, here is a question about which reasonable minds can differ. Was the excuse about concerns about Ukrainian corruption genuine, or is it simply part of the cover up? Did President Zelenskiy genuinely feel no pressure, or is he simply constrained to say so because of ongoing pressure? Does it matter whether there was pressure, or a bribe, or a quid pro quo, or is the simple act of asking a foreign government (particularly one dependent on the US for its survival) to assist with the President’s re-election campaign, enough to merit removal from office?
Those are questions that ought to be answered for the American people, and they are questions that can only be answered if there is a real trial in the Senate. As this is written, that prospect seems very unlikely. Republicans seem intent on defending whatever conduct the President engages in, regardless of its impact on our Constitutional values.
Leaving aside the pros and cons of what happened concerning Ukraine, there are several overriding issues that would support removal, regardless of where the Dow is. The balance of powers that the founders established is in jeopardy. If a president can engage in questionable conduct, and reject Congressional oversight with impunity, our very democracy is at risk. So removal is appropriate based upon obstruction of Congress.
President Trump insists, and may even believe, that everything he did was perfect. It is therefore OK to invite foreign interference with elections, and presumably to maintain your grip on power in other ways, as long as you can convince your base that you did nothing wrong, and that the other side is just out to get you. The upshot of this is that the President will continue to seek foreign government interference in 2020, and worse, it may become the new normal. Given the President’s intransigence, there is no way short of removal to signal that this conduct is intolerable under our Constitution.
