Impeachment is not a simple maneuver

This post was published in the Wilson Times April 27,  2019.

In the first 100 years of the American Republic, only one president was impeached (and the senator who cast the decisive “not guilty” vote was lauded in John F. Kennedy’s “Profiles in Courage”). In the last 50 years, I have lived through two (failed) impeachments and am now facing a potential third trial aimed at removing Donald Trump from office.

With the release of the Mueller report, it is now up to Congress to decide whether President Trump will be impeached. The special counsel investigation failed to find prima facie evidence of conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign to sway the 2016 election to Trump, but it did find an abundance of evidence of dishonesty, cruelty, misuse of office, malfeasance, abuse of presidential power and abuse of federal officials. It also showed the Trump campaign did nothing to rebuff or discourage Russia’s improper interventions. The Constitution provides for impeachment of a president for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and Trump defenders claim no one has presented credible evidence of a “high crime.”

But did the authors of the Constitution intend to limit impeachment only to specific federal crimes (there were no federal criminal statutes at the time the Constitution was ratified)? Or were the authors of the Constitution intentionally vague in order to punish misbehavior, incompetence or disreputable behavior in office? Many contend the latter thinking was intended in the impeachment clause.

Many elected officials (most of them Democrats) have cited Trump’s blatant lies, his mistreatment of subordinates and international allies, his narcissism, his attacks on the federal courts, his mendacity, his contempt for American values and institutions as more than adequate grounds for impeachment.

Some Democrats and a few others are pushing for Congress to bring impeachment charges against the president, but the Democratic leadership in Congress has advocated caution over any impeachment bill. Theoretically, an impeachable offense is whatever Congress says it is. It is the sole authority on this matter, authorized to bring charges in the House and convict or find not guilty in the Senate. Because GOP senators have lined up behind Trump, no matter what, an impeachment trial conviction is highly unlikely.

Although Congress determines whether an incident is an impeachable offense, there is another factor involved: voters. In the 1974 impeachment case against Richard Nixon, a majority of Americans had lost all confidence in Nixon. His approval ratings in polls dropped into the 20 percent range. The courts had ruled against his refusal to give up subpoenaed evidence of his obstruction of justice. Even then, Nixon had a loyal following among a small minority of voters and a league of loyalists on Capitol Hill. It took the intervention of Sen. Barry Goldwater, the most respected Republican in Congress, to convince Nixon that he had to resign or face certain removal from office.

When the House voted to impeach Bill Clinton in 1998, the president remained popular. He recorded his highest popularity rating — 73 percent — in the month that the House voted to impeach him. He was quickly acquitted by the Senate. The Clinton impeachment came to be viewed as a ghastly overreach by Republicans in Congress. Yes, Clinton had a disgusting affair with a 22-year-old White House intern, and he lied about it, but he lied to protect himself and his family, not to harm the country. Pushing the Clinton matter to the level of impeachment hurt the Republican Party, so Democratic leaders are cautious about going down that road again.

Their caution is sensible, but Trump might not be immunized from impeachment. The Mueller report, at first lauded and then condemned by Trump, did not exonerate the president. It revealed or confirmed a number of incidents that could be criminal misconduct, including obstruction of justice. Congress will investigate Trump’s finances, including the likelihood that his businesses violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution. The Mueller report may be only the beginning of a serious examination of Trump misconduct that could lead to impeachment.

Trump’s next test will likely be at the ballot box 18 months from now, not in an impeachment bill before Congress. Some have raised concerns that Trump might refuse to vacate his office if he is impeached or defeated at the polls. After all, he still contends, against all evidence, that he won the popular vote in 2016. His base of loyal, determined supporters likely will follow him down whatever road he takes. They have made it clear that they are loyal to Trump, not to the Constitution.

   In 2020 voters will choose whether to believe a president who dismisses as “fake news” anything that makes him look bad or fails to bolster his ego against someone (a candidate to be named later) who will promise a return to respect for federal agencies, institutions, laws and standards.

Hal Tarleton is a former editor of The Wilson Daily Times. Contact him at haltarleton@myglnc.com.

-->

Commanders in Chief without military experience

The Constitution sets relatively few requirements for holding the office of president of the United States: One must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States and must be 35 years old or older and must have resided in the United States for 14 years.

Few jobs in America have such a short list of job requirements, yet the country has survived for these 229 years since the adoption of the Constitution with presidents meeting only minimal job requirements. A college education is not required. Many of our most admired presidents — Lincoln, Washington, Truman, for example — would have been disqualified by such a requirement. No job experience is required, and the way we choose a president has little application to the overwhelming difficulty of managing a federal workforce in the millions, dealing with foreign countries, both friendly and adversarial, dealing with Congress, and serving as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. That's far different from traveling around the country asking people to vote for him/her.

A week of mourning for Sen. John McCain has brought to mind that last responsibility of the president. If military experience counted, McCain might have reached his dream of being elected president. He was the son and grandson of U.S. Navy admirals and had served with distinction as a Navy aviator.

For much of American history, service in the armed forces was a common trait among presidents. Washington, Andrew Jackson, Benjamin Harrison, U.S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison, Theodore Roosevelt and others served in combat. In my own lifetime, Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush — every president until Clinton's election in 1992 — served in the military either in combat or stateside. Voters have not elected a military veteran, with the exception of George W. Bush, who only served in the Reserves and was never deployed, since the first President Bush lost the 1992 election to Clinton.

Although it's not a requirement for office, it's fair to ask what presidents without military experience are missing in their resumes. Military service teaches discipline, motivation, management, service, sacrifice and patriotism. It also exposes Americans to people with different backgrounds, advantages or disadvantages. In the years of a military draft, well-bred, well-connected college graduates rubbed shoulders with high school dropouts, and they learned to depend on these soldiers or sailors who were very different from themselves.

That experience would certainly enlighten the resident of the White House faced with a decision on military intervention or troop deployment. Presidents such as Washington, Jackson, Grant and others, who had experienced war up close and had been responsible for orders that resulted in deaths of brave, obedient soldiers, certainly would recognize the gravity of their actions in a way that someone without military experience would not.

In today's America, with only a small percentage of Americans voluntarily choosing a military career, it is difficult to find presidential aspirants with a military background. Veterans dominated the White House and congressional leadership from 1945 to the end of the century, but veterans are much rarer now in the halls of power.

Military experience does not inoculate presidents from bad decisions. George W. Bush foolishly ordered U.S. troops to invade Iraq in 2003 in search of non-existent "weapons of mass destruction." But President Kennedy, still scarred by injuries suffered when a Japanese ship sank his PT boat, rejected the advice of his generals and chose a successful blockade of Cuba in 1962 instead of an invasion to destroy Russian missiles there, a strategy that would result in high casualties and could escalate into nuclear war. Unlike the younger Bush, Kennedy had experienced combat and seen good men die all around him.

Back in the news: It's Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton is back, and this time he's doing well by doing good. The former president is freshly back from a private mission to North Korea, where he met with the enigmatic and reportedly ailing "Dear Leader" Kim Jong Il and obtained pardons for two American journalists who had been convicted by North Korea of spying. It's a fortuitous revival for the former president, who was last in the public eye campaigning for his wife, now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Suffice it to say that Bill Clinton appears to have done a better job with the North Koreans than with 2008 Democratic primary voters.

And let's admit a deserved compliment for his wife. I, for one, thought the appointment of Sen. Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state was a bad idea. I thought her ego and independence were too big for this sensitive and ceremonial job. But she has sublimated her ego and has led the administration's efforts to mend fences around the world while keeping pressure on adversarial regimes such as Iran and North Korea. She's proving herself in this new and very different role.

But back to her husband. Bill Clinton accepted this mission at the apparent behest of Kim Jong Il, who seems to have an affection for Western celebrities. Kim reportedly turned down other emissaries and insisted on the 42nd president himself. According to at least one account, the usually ebullient and unpredictable Clinton maintained a disciplined, disinterested and business-like demeanor throughout the meeting with Kim, who behaved more like a thrilled and starry-eyed teenager. Clinton returned to the United States looking like a disciplined, credit-deflecting professional, with the pardoned and appreciative journalists.

What everyone wants to know is what does this diplomatic coup mean for relations with nuclear-armed and belligerent North Korea. No one really knows, but it's the first hopeful sign from the Kim regime in years. The Obama administration emphasized that Clinton carried no official message on what it described as a private trip. But the president and secretary of state will surely try to capitalize on any slight opening Clinton's meeting with Kim might imply. North Korea might well be the most volatile nation in the world, a bigger challenge than Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan. If diplomatic efforts can take this ticking bomb off the table, it will be easier for the United States to deal with other international problems.

North Carolina: still humble but not apologizing

I had long ago heard North Carolina described as that "vale of humility between two mountains of conceit" (Virginia and South Carolina), but I never fully understood it until South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford explained it all to me Wednesday, when he returned from his quick jaunt to South America.

You see, we here in North Carolina had a guv-nuh was a bit old fashioned. He was interested in money. He wanted to take everything that wasn't tied down and fly off on fun vacations with his best pals, who were doing business with the state, and get his wife a lucrative job at N.C. State University. He also liked to drive other people's automobiles. The News & Observer got into quite an uproar about Guv-nuh Mike's excesses, and the U.S. attorney is subpoenaing everybody with a state government e-mail address. But Guv-nuh Mike was just going after a little money.

Guv-nuh Mark Sanford, on the other hand, was getting laid! Not only that, he was doing it with a foreigner, when, it has been pointed out, he could have helped the state economy by having his affair with a home-grown mistress. (What's he got against South Carolina women, anyway?) To top it off, after he finally had to confess that he wasn't hiking the Appalachian Trail (although he apparently did get a little exercise) and confess that it was all about the sex, he had the temerity to lecture the press and the whole darned state of South Carolina about morality and responsibility and forgiveness and sin and family and any darned thing else that happened to fall out of his confused mind.

(This might be a good place to ask that troubling question: What is it about Republican politicians? They can't stop playing around all the while they're preaching "family values." Sen. John Ensign just confessed to an affair last week. It's not all Republicans, though. Democrat Eliot Spitzer of New York found himself in a mess last year, too, and no one has forgotten Bill Clinton's interest in women of all types.)

We North Carolinians thought we had a pretty good scandal going with Mike Easley's free trips and his coastal real estate deal and his cars and his wife's $170,000 a year job, but we weren't even close. South Carolina just couldn't abide the thought that North Carolina would exceed South Carolina in something, even if it was a political scandal. So Mark Sanford, out of a sense of obligation to his state's pride, had to make up a cock-and-bull story about hiking when he was actually involved in a different verb altogether. And then he had to get caught in it and apologize to everybody he'd ever known.

We North Carolinians can at least take some pride in the fact that Mike Easley hasn't apologized, and he doesn't show any sign of doing it any time soon. Sanford might have had more fun doing what he did, but Easley is simply too humble, in keeping with state traditions, to confess to anything.