Impeachment unfolds in deeply divided nation

This article was published in the Wilson Times Oct. 16, 2019.

The first day of public hearings in the U.S. House impeachment inquiry took place in a far different political atmosphere from the 1973-74 Watergate hearings and subsequent House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings.

Wednesday’s hearings showed that partisan rancor would play a much larger role this year than it did in the Nixon hearings. Some Republican members and staff saw fit to attack witnesses’ integrity and engage in speechmaking rather than asking witnesses for information. The minority counsel seemed lost and confused as he tried to put words into the mouths of witnesses. Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, used his question time to blurt so many accusatory questions so fast that the witnesses had little opportunity to respond, which was fine because his questions were not really questions anyway.

Ambassador William Taylor and the State Department’s George Kent handled themselves and the situation admirably. These two career diplomats who had served under Democratic and Republican presidents respectfully responded to some loaded questions by saying they could not answer because they had no knowledge of the matter. When asked about his view on impeachment, Taylor responded that he had no view; he was a career professional who served the president, whoever the president might be. The impeachment question is one the Constitution leaves to members of the House, he told the questioner.

Taylor and Kent were in many ways as impressive as John Dean was in 1973. Dean had a seemingly encyclopedic recall of facts and incidents he observed as White House Counsel. Taylor had notes about episodes he had observed, a lengthy, thorough opening statement and detailed responses to questions. Kent was unperturbed by disrespectful, even angry questions.

In 1973, Dean’s testimony was dismissed by Nixon supporters, but when the White House tapes were released over Nixon’s objections, Dean’s recollections proved amazingly accurate and complete.

In 2019, there is not likely to be a “smoking gun” like the White House tapes, but there will be additional witnesses, most of whom are expected to support Wednesday’s witnesses’ testimony and previous reporting.

Thus far, no celebrities have been created by the 2019 impeachment hearings in the like of Sen. Sam Ervin or Sen. Howard Baker, the majority and minority leaders of the Watergate committee. The 2019 committee chair, Adam Schiff, was unemotional and fair Wednesday, despite scurrilous personal attacks by Trump and others. But he lacks Sam Ervin’s colorful stories and personality. The seven-member Watergate committee ultimately found Richard Nixon had used the powers of the presidency to cover up his approval of the Watergate break-in.

The biggest difference between 1973-74 and today is the existence of highly partisan organizations that are willing to distort facts, deny obvious truths and make up whole scenarios contradicting plainly seen incidents. The result has been a nation more divided than it ever was during the Watergate inquiry, even though the two sides in the Watergate scandal were ferocious in their criticisms. Nixon and his minions did all they could to excuse Nixon’s actions but they did not have the lobbying groups, highly partisan news sources and “alternative facts” of today.

While most news sources and individuals saw impeachment inquiry witnesses forthrightly reporting potentially impeachable actions of the president, Fox News, the largest and most successful Trump defender, proclaimed the hearings boring and a disaster for Democrats. Recent polling shows the electorate divided between those who get all their news on the Fox News channel and those who don’t.

Impeachment by a vote of the full House will not settle the matter. To remove a president from office, impeachment charges must be tried in the Senate, where Republicans hold a majority.

If the impeachment hearings convince the public that Trump abused his office, but loyal Republicans prevent his conviction, the party could lose national support. If an impeachment resolution fails to pass in the Democrat-led House, the party could face long-term damage.

Two presidents have been impeached (Nixon would have been had he not resigned to save face), but none has ever been convicted in a Senate trial. If impeached, Trump is determined to continue that streak.

Impeaching Trump will not be easy

With Michael Flynn pleading guilty to lying to the FBI in the special prosecutor's probe of Russian influence in the 2016 election and with new anger aimed at men who fondle and sexually harass women, one has to wonder whether President Trump's administration might truly be endangered.

Articles of impeachment have reportedly been discussed in the House of Representatives. Potential charges include obstruction of justice by firing FBI Director Comey in order to slow down or stop the Russia probe, false statements presented to the American public, either in interviews or tweets; racial, religious and ethnic discrimination in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other legislation; and bringing disrepute upon the presidency by multiple alleged  incidents of sexual harassment of women.

Congress is far from an impeachment indictment, which is a rare event in the history of the Republic, and should be. However, the special prosecutor is gathering charges and testimony that could readily present an impeachment that easily could  match the seriousness of the charges against Richard Nixon and exceed the impeachment charges against Bill Clinton. Impeachment still seems unlikely, but it is not impossible, perhaps not even improbable.

The House of Representatives, which must vote to impeach the president, is standing solidly with the president on a string of controversial bills, regardless of public opinion. Passing an impeachment bill in the overwhelmingly Republican House has little chance as the Trump administration nears its first birthday. However, more indictments of top Trump aides and more details of cooperation with Russians in disrupting the 2016 election in Trump's favor could force all but the truest believers to vote to impeach.

The odds in a Senate trial, where Republicans have a 52-48 majority, might seem more hazardous for Trump, but the Senate is properly reluctant to remove an elected official from office, and a verdict of guilty to "high crimes and misdemeanors" seems unlikely.

Making the Senate's vote more difficult is the apparent willingness of die-hard Trump supporters of stick with their man regardless of what he says or does. This Trump base does not believe anything they read in the "mainstream media" — if they read anything at all from traditional news media — and blindly accept Trump's claim that any negative reporting about him is "fake news." They won't be moved, even if the House and Senate vote unanimously to impeach and remove the president from office, even if Vladimir Putin admits that he called the shots in Trump's election and helped him win.

This unyielding Trump base is believed to account for about 20 percent of voters, far from a majority but still a lot of angry people. It helps to remember that even after Richard Nixon resigned the presidency and was caught on tape trying to obstruct justice, millions of Americans continued to support him, bought his books and held him in highest esteem.

Impeaching Trump may be possible, but it is not likely without a landslide of new facts in the criminal probe. A better, more likely way of removing Trump will come in 2020. 

Parallels with hearings from 45 years ago

From 1972-75, I worked in Washington, D.C., subscribed to the Washington Post, and watched the Watergate hearings on television as much as I could. Like much of America, I was mesmerized by the hearings.

Watching, reading about or listening to the testimony before congressional committees this year takes me back to the Watergate era. So much is the same — the setting in ornate hearing rooms before scores of staff members, media representatives and other officials are interchangeable between 1973 and 2017.

As I listened to testimony from fired FBI Director James Comey, I was transported back to the testimony of John Dean, the White House counsel before the Watergate Committee. Both witnesses spoke in carefully, cautiously measured phrases. Both demonstrated uncanny recall of events. Both men's testimony had the ring of truth.

Tuesday's testimony by Attorney General Jeff Sessions recalled another similarity to Watergate: partisan attacks against the witness were unbecoming and contrary to the Senate's courteous traditions. That is true about both political parties. Democrats tried to interrogate Sessions and force him to admit to wrongdoing. Chairman Richard Burr had to remind one senator to allow the witness to answer her question. Republicans sought to defend the president by shifting the focus of the inquiry or adroitly denying generally accepted facts.

Sessions tried to be the courtly southern gentleman, but it was difficult when he was interrupted by aggressive questioners before he could complete his answer in his slow drawl. Sessions, the administration's "top lawyer," however, refused to answer some questions on the basis of executive privilege even while admitting that he could not invoke executive privilege. Only the president can do that, and President Trump had not invoked executive privilege over his conversations with Sessions. Thus, Sessions said he was reserving the president's right to invoke executive privilege at some time in the future. That strikes many people as stretching a constitutional privilege complete out of shape. By his standard, every conversation with the president would be privileged until the president declares it is not covered by executive privilege. That leaves no room for balance of power and the authority of Congress to examine the executive branch's performance.

As the hearings continue and the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 elections continue, parallels with Watergate will keep popping up. What is unlikely to pop up is a presidential resignation. While President Nixon was a paranoid egotist who could not admit to being wrong, he at least had the interests of the country foremost in his mind. What is foremost in Trump's mind is Trump himself.