Moral Imperative: The Inexorable March Toward Impeachment
It is now up Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty and prosecute criminal obstruction of justice by the President,…regardless of party.
Now that Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, has completed his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, and whether President Donald J. Trump (or members of his campaign) conspired with the Russian government in that regard and/or obstructed justice in such investigation(s); We the People (and the President) are left with an uncertain future relative to what comes next, both legally and politically.
To be sure — and without rehashing the reasons that Robert Mueller came to become named “Special Counsel” in the first place (i.e., Trump’s firing of FBI Director, James Comey) — where we find ourselves now, as a nation of laws and clearly defined remedies available when a president commits a crime, is not only confusing, but convoluted and partisan as well.
Confusing; primarily because many Americans do not understand that the imposition of impeachment proceedings to remove a sitting president (or any federal official for that matter) involves a two-step process; the indictment by the House (Articles of Impeachment), followed by an actual trial in the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, requiring a two-thirds (67) vote in the affirmative, for the president to be officially removed from office.
Convoluted; because — unlike every other federal public official — the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has determined that a sitting president can not (or should not) be criminally indicted of a crime, principally due to the 1973 DOJ Memorandum that; the inordinate time and effort involved in fighting impeachment would do harm to the president’s need to govern effectively while under such an uncertain legal outcome (e.g., depositions, discovery, and testimony at trial).
“b. Direct interference with official duties. A necessity to defend a criminal trial and to attend court in connection with it, however, would interfere with the President’s unique official duties, most of which cannot be performed by anyone else. It might be suggested that the same is true with the defense of impeachment proceedings; but this is a risk expressly contemplated by the Constitution, and is a necessary incident of the impeachment process.” (Page 28, DOJ Memorandum)
And finally, partisan; because — unlike the higher threshold/standards of a criminal trial (by a jury of 12-peers) requiring a unanimous verdict, based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction of charged criminal counts — the standards of both impeachment (by the House), and conviction (by the Senate) is predicated on what is viewed by Congress as “high crimes or misdemeanors,” but not requiring a unanimous vote (for either impeachment or conviction), nor requiring that those votes be based on “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” but possible based only upon a “preponderance of the evidence.”
In that regard, I (and many seasoned legal scholars) assert that, while there may not (yet) be “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” relative to the first element of the Mueller Probe, i.e., conspiracy (not collusion, as cited by the President and his Attorney General, William Barr); there is more than enough “preponderance of evidence” in the second element— namely in ten-incidents scrupulously detailed in the Mueller Probe — that the President did indeed commit “obstruction of justice” as that term is defined and understood in the relevant federal statute.
18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines “obstruction of justice” as an act that “corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”
THE MORAL IMPERATIVE OF IMPEACHMENT:
Already, we are seeing a full-court press effort being made by President Trump, his political operatives, and conservative media — to denigrate the findings of the Mueller Report,…even as their initial response was to mischaracterize it and claim it as a “total and complete exoneration” of any “collusion” (not a legal term, nor even considered by Mueller), or any “obstruction of justice.”
Meanwhile, the House of Representatives, under the steady and capable leadership of Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, struggles to receive a full and complete (unredacted) copy of the Report, and then — consider their legal, legislative options, to hold the President accountable for his obstruction (including his attempted obstruction) of the investigation which courts have already ruled legal under the law, consistent with Mueller’s mandate by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller in the aftermath of the firing of FBI Director James Comey by the President.
Indeed, the decision over just how to proceed in such a politically divided environment is fraught with potential for failure — legal and political — should the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, under the guidance of committee chairs determined to see the entire, unredacted Report, proceed willy-nilly, without laying the necessary groundwork, with formal hearings and testimony under oath by the various principals and participants named in the Mueller Report.
But, to take a purely-political position, that such proceedings are (or may be) largely moot or ineffective due to the process or outcome being too uncertain; too complicated; or too time consuming,…as we move ever closer to the next presidential election would — in my view — be a gross dereliction of Congress’s duty to hold the chief executive accountable. But, more importantly; waiting for the next election (while doing nothing legislatively) would help this president establish unsustainable, illegal precedents for future administrations!
Indeed, we are at a very dangerous crossroads in our democracy, if and when a sitting president is permitted to: 1. Directly influence or terminate future investigations into his/her misconduct, without any legal recourse or penalty; and 2. Politicize the Department of Justice so that he/she may utilize it as a tool to either punish political enemies, or reward political friends.
While the political fortunes of one Donald J. Trump are central to this ongoing drama, now being played out nightly on cable news; it is the lasting dignity, the future credibility of; and the ethical governance by the office of the presidency itself that is at stake. In that regard, and without becoming political here; I largely agree with Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA):
“Mueller put the next step in the hands of Congress: “Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.” The correct process for exercising that authority is impeachment.”
To do any less, than to begin the hearing and testimonial process — towards drafting relevant Articles of Impeachment — would be to short change the American People, and insult the drafters of the U.S. Constitution who prescribed impeachment of a president, and laid out the process(es) to remove from office one whom has violated the basic rule of law; suborned perjury of other federal officers; impeded and obstructed justice; and threatened our very democracy.