Is the Impeachment Of Donald Trump Possible?

Impeachment! This word is constantly brandished across the headlines of the American media. In the past, such slogans shook America, as when the Democratic president, Bill Clinton, was subjected to that political procedure. But neither he nor the other two American presidents who came close to being impeached were ever removed from office. Which scenario is awaiting Donald Trump? Will he be able to offset such a strong criticism towards him in the society, in the mass media, and in the establishment, and prevent his own impeachment?

Impeachment! This word is constantly brandished across the headlines of the American media. In the past, such slogans shook America, as when the Democratic president, Bill Clinton, was subjected to that political procedure. But neither he nor the other two American presidents who came close to being impeached were ever removed from office. Which scenario is awaiting Donald Trump? Will he be able to offset such a strong criticism towards him in the society, in the mass media, and in the establishment, and prevent his own impeachment?

Lawrence McDonnell:
“Lies, Spies and Big Data: How Fake News Is Rewriting Political Landscapes”

The complexity of impeachment is due to the fact that it is a purely political procedure. Because the decision is not that of impartial judicial bodies, but by the representatives of political parties (or, by the “representatives of the people”) who constantly make their judgments in order to serve their ulterior motives. However, when the founding fathers invented the procedure of presidential impeachment, they did want to give that much responsibility to the legislative power That power implies that presidents could be exchanged if desired by the majority in the Congress. It was prescribed for that only two reasons can be strong enough to remove the president from office: treason and/or corruption. The process itself proceeds in two stages. During the first stage, the House of Representatives votes, and the will of a simple majority is reflected in the overall decision. But there consists a peculiar “genius” of the founding fathers here; subsequently, the procedure passes to the Senate, where the advocates of impeachment need to get a two-thirds majority, meaning that at least 67 of 100 Senate members must be voting in congruence to pass a decision. Be sure, it is practically impossible to reach such a consensus in the Senate. Thus, the accusing of the president by itself, say, of treason, is brought forward by the House of Representatives, and then the Senate itself delivers its judgment.

The administration of the present American executive knows well that only 3 presidents in the history of the United States came as close as possible for the Congress to bring the impeachment process through. Those presidents were Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Additionally, the administration is aware that in each case, except for Nixon’s, the Senate was on the president’s side.

Political strategists of the White House most definitely learn from the analogies drawn from history, in particular, to the case with Andrew Johnson. Having become the president after the murder of Abraham Lincoln, Johnson was found to be a strange and unfavorable personality among the Washington establishment. In those times, the radical republicans dominated on the political Olympus, and had their own vision of the future for the country and for the South which defeated according to results of the Civil War. Not only was Johnson the member of the Democratic Party, he also opposed the reforms that the Republicans were trying to push forth, and he imposed a veto on the most of the projected laws suggested by the Congress.

For Donald Trump, this nuance in this history is important only in the consideration of the fact that the Republicans were able to initialize the impeachment procedure only after the victory at the midterm elections in the Congress in 1866. As a result, the House of Representatives mobilized to the impeachment process, and three quarters of its membership accused Johnson of the attempt to sabotage the legitimate government’s actions. Though there was a significant amount in support of this motion, the Republicans came short of the ability to impeach Johnson by a single vote (the Senate counted 54 persons then and only 35 persons voted “pro”). As a result, all of the charges against Johnson were dropped, and he was in his official service until the end of his term.

The second lesson from history that is important for Trump’s team should be impeachment proceedings for Bill Clinton. In spite of all the efforts of his opponents in Congress and positive voting on impeachment in the House of Representatives, they decided otherwise in the Senate. Out of 100 senators, 50 of them considered Clinton’s guilt of obstruction to justice as established, 45 of them – his guilt of perjured testimony. However, as we remember, a two-thirds majority (or 67) of the votes on at least one charge is required for removal of the president.

Why are the Johnson and Clinton impeachment cases more applicable to the Trump Administration than is Nixon’s “Watergate Scandal” and his subsequent trial? Firstly, Nixon announced his resignation before the impeachment procedure even began. His administration understood that with that the evidence which the member of Congress and the press had was irrefutable, and that he could not avoid removal from power by means of impeachment. Secondly, the senators did not wish for the vice-presidents of Johnson and Clinton (he generally was awfully popular among people in spite of all sexual scandals) to come to power, unlike with Nixon, who was replaced by the speaker of the House of Representatives, Gerald Ford (appointed less than one year before that by Nixon himself, and in that way having become the only president in the history of the United states who was never elected nationally either for the presidential position or the vice-presidential position).

Rich Berdan:
Trump’s Unpredictability is His Strength

The vice-president of the present chief of the White House, Michael Pence, enjoys a certain amount of disrespect amongst the members of the Congress (and with that, of the both parties). Earlier the idea about potential impeachment to Trump and Michael Pence’s coming to the president position was hovering only among the most radical left-wingers, so now this theme has established quite enough among representatives of both Republicans and Democrats in both houses of the Congress. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, for the half of a year of him serving as president, Trump and his administration were subjected to attacks on huge range of issues, from immigration policy to nepotism when forming circle of counselors on national security. Secondly, there are several investigations about Russia’s interference with presidential elections of 2016, and the members of the administration of Trump were interrogated in order to investigate their validity. Whereas the first reason influences negatively the rating of the president and, albeit to a lesser degree, of the Republican Party, the latter is a legitimate argument in favor of the change of the present US president.

But Michael Pence, though he enjoys official support among the Republicans (and non-official support among many of Democrats), still may follow the way of the same Gerald Ford who pardoned Nixon for all crimes, revealed and not revealed, which he could have committed during the period of his being the president. Truly speaking, Nixon did resign a commission before the beginning of the impeachment procedure itself and therefore he had the right for such a pardon.

The “Russian card” which is played out so actively by the opponents of the sitting president could not persist without actions that Trump repeatedly engages himself in. Trump himself hints at the presence of contacts of his nearest circle with Russia, which has yet to fully come to the public eye. The former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, comes to mind at once, whom Trump removed from the position for the reason of a loss of confidence. However, the Washington establishment understands that the real reason is the initiated search and clearing of Flynn’s secret Russian contacts. Further, we could mention the dismissal of the FBI Director, James Comey, which officially was caused by “inefficient administration” of the department he headed, but which in Washington is actually connected with Comey’s investigation of the connection of Trump’s administration members with Russia. At the hearings in the Senate, where both Director Comey and the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions were summoned. Sessions’ presence (note that he had signed a recommendation for Trump about “inefficient administration” and in that connection the need of dismissing the FBI Director), made the atmosphere tense. The main result of the hearings is that the intelligence society is sure that Russia somehow interfered with the elections, but the secret connections of Trump’s administration with Russian intelligence services are still under consideration. That is, there are no admissible reasons for charging Trump or the member of his administration of treason or corruption.

But on May 17 of this year, the member of the House of Representatives, Democrat Al Green from the state of Texas, called on his fellow members of Congress to initiate the impeachment procedure on President Trump. Green called on the accusation for the obstruction of justice, of which Trump is charged after Comey’s evidence. Green spoke of the President’s pressure upon the then-director of FBI with the purpose of stopping the investigation of the “Russian trace” in his administration. As of yet, none of the Republicans in the House of Representatives have spoken openly about support of the initiative of impeachment of Trump, and, as is well known, the majority in the House (like in the Senate) belongs to the “Elephant’s Party” (elephant is a symbol of the Republican Party, which impersonates the power). Additionally, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Republican Newt Gingrich, spoke on the matter as follows: “Technically, the US President cannot obstruct justice … if he wants to fire the FBI director, all he's got to do is fire him”. Gingrich in his time voted for initiation of the impeachment procedure to Clinton on the same charge which is laid on Trump now, and namely “obstruction of justice”. Such a position demonstrates best of all the historically proved fact – as long as the president holds the power whose party has a majority in the House of Representatives, there will be no impeachment.

The entirety of the impeachment proceedings and accusations, though not producing an actual removal from office, has a psychological toll on President Trump and his administration. As a result, he makes statements and publishes reports in social media which once again become the ground of his opponents and critics for new accusations of “inability to perform his duties efficiently,” or simply the perpetuation of blatant lies.