Impeachment? "witch hunt" says Trump

Speaker Pelosi

The news came like a thunderbolt to the country, as US Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that the House would begin an impeachment inquiry for the equally startling news about the accusation about a whistleblower’s report that President Trump had threatened to freeze financial aid to Ukraine, unless President Volodymr Zalensky agreed to an inquiry into alleged transactions, and violations, against rival presidential candidate, Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

The fallout has spread banner headlines across the world, yet for most people, there has been exclamations, of “at last” and “finally” - but there seems to be a rush to judgement, for some people thinking that Trump would be immediately clapped in irons, forthwith.

While the Constitution allows a president to be impeached it is relatively silent on how the process should be carried out, other than the process begins in the House, and proceeds to the Senate for a trial.

“Impeachment is not, to be clear, the removal of corrupt presidents or other officials, but simply the adoption of charges by the House, triggering a trial in the Senate,” emphasized Intelligencer, in their coverage.

The two presidents that have been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were not removed from office, and the expectations that Trump might be removed from office is not a given.

Trump’s enemies are as well-known as his supporters, and even the injection of reality into the argument has not been easy, and like the Mueller Report that predates the inquiry, to the squeals of the anti-Trump crowd, ‘he’s still there”, making public perception problematic.

“In past presidential impeachments, the House has formally voted to authorize the Judiciary Committee to initiate impeachment proceedings. But this step has been skipped on occasion in the impeachment of judges, and it’s entirely the product of custom and internal House rules (themselves interpreted and controlled by the House majority at a given time),” they added.

Meanwhile support for an inquiry has increased,  according to a recent poll from The New York Times, from House Democrats who, as of Thursday afternoon, are 217 supporting, one independent and 17 in opposition.

On the GOP side, there are 135 representatives opposed, and 63 have not responded..

For those in a hurry, they might as well take a seat, as the total investigation could take as long as a year, and with a controversial president, and a litany of alleged abuses, if the Mueller Report is to be believed, if not acknowledged then the country had better prepare for a lengthy inquiry.

To add fuel to the fire, it is not even necessary to have a trial, after the Judiciary Committee has made its decision In fact, “there are no constitutional provisions requiring a trial of any particular length or depth. Rules for impeachment trials can be set by a simple majority, which gives the party controlling the Senate considerable leeway. It’s assumed the House’s representatives (or “managers”) will be given an opportunity to present and explain the articles of impeachment on which the trial will be based, much like prosecutors in criminal cases,” added the Intelligencer.

Techniques aside, it’s apparent that Pelosi was pushed by the president’s actions to open the inquiry, and it’s just as clear, despite diminished expectations, after looking at the process, that this could easily backfire for those who hope that the American electorate will suddenly find itself in a rage, of discomfiture and rise up in arms to send Trump back to New York.

In a neat segue Pelosi has noted that the judiciary hearings from the House under Jerry Nadler constitute ongoing investigations, and inquiries, dovetailing with her earlier statements that when the facts were discovered, an inquiry might be launched.

Pelosi, a political veteran has “been there, done that” with process and treating the impeachment as another political process, demonstrates the seriousness of the allegations by the whistle-blower; and the deftness that she showed with the announcement, should caution future statements coming from the White House, as when the president calling the unnamed person, a spy, suggesting that he might be eliminated.

“I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that’s close to a spy," Trump said.

By all accounts reports have “suggested he was an analyst by training and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law,” reported The New York Times

“The whistle-blower’s expertise will likely add to lawmakers’ confidence about the merits of his complaint, and tamp down allegations that he might have misunderstood what he learned about Mr. Trump,” they added.

The summary, and it was just a summary, released by the White House shows a strong role for Vice President Pence in the cover-up, so if that is part of the crime, then Pence as the successor is not desirable; if we are speaking of holding elected officials, the highest, to the standard of not being above the law.

Vice-President Pence

Adding fuel to the fire, Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Guilani’s involvement at pressuring Zelensky  adds to the seriousness of the charges, and to carry water for a quid pro quid does have damning consequences; but, for most, the real meat of the matter is if the Senate would “go up against” the president, the de facto leader of their party.

While Democrats can try to claim the moral high ground, the Republicans are in charge and it’s almost laughable, say some, to think that he will be removed from office, with the required two-thirds of a Senate vote.

Many are already urging a “go slow” approach and saying that the ban on soliciting foreign aid - in whatever form is overly broad, as a first amendment argument, yet proving that the solicitation is a determination of abuse, needs to be explored as an impeachable offense, is the issue, according to Rick Hassen a professor of political science at the University of California, Irvine, in an interview with CQ Roll Call.

An earlier argument noted that the airing of the misconduct will shift public opinion, and force the hand of the president to do good, but Thursday’s news that Trump “has decided to slash the American refugee program by almost half, deeply cutting the United States’ role in accepting persecuted refugees from most parts of the world", does not bode well for that argument.

“The administration said it would accept 18,000 refugees during the next 12 months, down from the current limit of 30,000 and a fraction of the 110,000 President Barack Obama said should be allowed into the United States in 2016, his final year in office.”

As noted earlier, and as the Intelligencer remarked, “the odds of Trump being removed via impeachment range from “slim” to “none.” It would take only 34 of 54 Senate Republicans to acquit Trump, and the idea that 20 senators from a party dominated by this president like a Bronze Age warlord would defy the MAGA base and try to defenestrate him on the brink of an epochal presidential election is, in a word, laughable.”

.