Impeachment: Pelosi vs. Trump

Gordon L. Weil

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had a plan: no impeachment of President Trump.

As the highest-ranking elected Democrat, she could impose her plan on her fellow Democrats, even over the objections of a wing of the Party anxious to attack.

Why did she prevent an impeachment inquiry? The Mueller report revealed Trump's effort to block the investigation of Russian involvement in the 2016 elections, but she saw that most Americans did not want him impeached. Other charges against him did not gain much traction.

In 2018, the Democrats had gained control of the House thanks to winning seats held by Republicans who supported Trump. If the Democrats now went after the president without public support, those seats might switch back to the GOP.

To let off steam, Pelosi allowed several House committees to look into issues surrounding Trump, from obstruction of justice to his personally profiting from being president. Those inquiries might give Democrats talking points in the 2020 campaign, but avoid making impeachment the center of the campaign.

Trump may have misread Pelosi's plan. Instead of seeing it as her strategy for winning in the upcoming House elections, he might have concluded that she recognized the Democrats did not have a case.

Ignoring Mueller's report on Russian meddling, he asked the president of the Ukraine to help him undermine former Vice President Joe Biden by reopening an investigation that had found Biden made no effort to protect his son from claims that his involvement with a company there was improper.

Trump's aides, realizing he could be seen to invite foreign involvement in an American election, tried to hide his conversation. Even worse, Trump had sought the Ukrainian's help while withholding funds to help him counter the Russians, who occupy part of his country.

One civil service employee, who had access to the facts, became a whistleblower by revealing what Trump had done. That changed everything.

The Ukraine revelation sent shock waves. There is wide opposition to seeking or using foreign help for a candidate in a U.S. election. Some Democratic House members, whose seats might be in jeopardy, became willing to risk their re-election out of their sense of obligation to the Constitution.

Pelosi's plan had to be amended as many Democrats shifted to favoring an impeachment inquiry. Public opinion also seemed to shift rapidly, making their risk seem less dangerous. In effect, the impeachment moved from a political calculation to a matter of principle. But Pelosi still sought to manage it.

With major issues like health care, the environment, and trade at stake, she remained committed to keeping impeachment from becoming the focal point of the presidential and congressional campaigns.

Pelosi's plan, based on three elements, is emerging.

First, the impeachment inquiry should be kept short. Historically, because the process draws the president's attention away from his duties, inquiries have been compressed.

In Pelosi's view, a short burst of attention to impeachment will help keep it away from center stage in the 2020 elections. Democrats who want to use it in their campaigns might do so, but they would not be forced to focus on it. The election could be more than simply about Trump.

Second, the scope of the inquiry would be limited as much as possible. Only the foreign involvement issue raised broad public concern, so the inquiry should be limited to related Trump actions. Collecting evidence is relatively easy on this issue, given the whistleblower's report and the transcript of Trump's call.

By keeping the inquiry to a single issue that has newly arisen, the Democrats would not appear to be airing all their past grievances. And that would also keep the inquiry brief.

Third, keep the inquiry serious. Avoid rants against the president. In the end the Judiciary Committee will have to recommend Articles of Impeachment to the House. Other committees will be involved. Some rants are inevitable.

But Pelosi has given the lead to Rep. Adam Schiff, a former prosecutor, who tries to avoid overheated arguments and creates an aura of authority. She is betting he can keep the process orderly, worthy of public respect.

Throughout the process, Americans will be educated about impeachment. It is not a criminal trial. It does not remove the president from office. It simply determines if there are charges serious enough for the Senate to consider removing the president. That's the only penalty.

The process has begun for only the fourth time in American history. At its heart, it is a contest about how constitutional government should operate between Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi.

Trump's free-wheeling made impeachment inquiry inevitable

Gordon L. Weil

For Donald Trump, the United States of America is his business.

He runs the U.S. government like a subsidiary of The Trump Organization, which he wholly owns and is designed to make him both wealthy and famous.

He has managed the federal government much as he manages his company – hands on, without a board of directors and staffed by family and people who enjoy basking in his attention.

In the narrow world of real estate, the most successful operators are not limited by a code of conduct. In privately held property companies, the boss sets the rules and goes as far as possible in bare-knuckle dealing.

Trump learned that exuding an aura of great confidence, even if that meant using "hyperbole" – his word for lying – intimidated competitors and created an irresistible sense of success. You might know you were not "the best," "the first," or the "the greatest," but you could get others to believe it.

The operation of government is based on a series of shared understandings about the Constitution and laws. With his business approach, he has seen no reason to observe them, if they get in the way of his objectives.

He misuses executive powers to the fullest, ignoring congressional intent in granting those powers. Just as he has no board of directors in his business, he avoids dealing with Congress as much as he can. Congress has seemed helpless to cope with his style of governing.

He has pushed the limits of acceptable government behavior, sometimes going too far.

Trump is the first president to engage in private business while serving in office. Though he turned day-to-day operations over to a son, he has not separated himself from The Trump Organization.

He touts his hotels and golf courses and encourages their use. He profits when people seeking government favors stay at his hotels. The constitutional prohibition on public officials receiving money from people who have business with government, the "emoluments clause," seems to fit Trump.

His campaign knowingly accepted from help from Russia, though he only solicited its support as a joke. No collusion.

It was important to investigate Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign, most of it unsolicited help. But Trump repeatedly sought to undermine all investigations. By blocking efforts to get at the facts, he interfered with the course of justice.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller found evidence of such interference and did not absolve Trump. Instead, he left any action to Congress, using the facts he had uncovered.

This summer, Trump tried to get the new Ukraine president to open an investigation of Joe Biden, a potential presidential opponent, and his son. There is no evidence against them. He took this action just after placing a hold on urgently needed anti-Russian aid to Ukraine.

Are Trump's actions less serious than Andrew Johnson's resisting Congress' attempt to block him from removing a cabinet officer or Bill Clinton lying about his sexual activities? Both presidents were impeached by the House, though the Senate did not remove them from office.

The United States of America is not a business. Impeachment, found in the Constitution, allows for an investigation of “misconduct of public men," Alexander Hamilton wrote. Without a board of directors, it is a way to hold the president accountable to somebody other than himself.

Hamilton, one of the drafters of the Constitution, recognized that impeachment was political and that charges would likely be brought by members of an opposing party. That's human nature. That is why a high hurdle was set for conviction. It requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

An impeachment investigation seeks evidence of alleged wrongdoing and does not force removal from office. The process itself educates the people and the Senate.

Impeachment should not be undertaken lightly. It can undermine government and popular confidence in it. The House should not impeach simply because it opposes Trump's policies or tactics. If issues are purely political, they should be left to the ballot box.

Trump's financial gains from his businesses while serving as president, Mueller's obstruction of justice charges and Trump's obvious and admitted request for political help from a foreign leader merit serious review. Congress has an obligation to the Constitution that matters far more than political allegiance or winning elections.

The impeachment process casts a shadow not only on Trump but over the country. No responsible person could have wanted it. But, if an impeachment investigation had not begun because of the clear issues Trump has raised, this constitutional provision would have become a dead letter.

Beware of polls, promises, and pundits in presidential campaign

Gordon L. Weil

It looks like the 2020 presidential election is just about over.

Much of the media seems to report that the pre-election polls tell us what we need to know about the candidates. The pundits forecast just what the winner will do after taking office.

Have polls, promises, and pundits settled matters more than 13 months before we vote? That would leave no chance for a candidate to stumble or any event in those months to change the result.

The outlook could be really boring. But there's good reason not to accept the political speculation.

Polls use a sample of the voting population to find out what voters think. To be reliable, polls should be based on a random sample of the whole population. But most people won't respond to polls. Pollsters adjust the results. In many polls, people select themselves, departing completely from a random sample.

A poll tells us what would happen if the election were held today. But the election won't be held for months, so why discount the effects of the campaigns and future events? Besides, who even knows if the questionnaire is fair? Few of us can see if the questions are neutral.

Despite all this, the Democrats use polls to screen out their debate participants. They also screen based on the amount of money candidates have raised. That virtually invites billionaires to run and exalts the role of money in politics.

How are voters supposed to judge candidates? By their promises and programs. If candidates differ on national health insurance or gun laws, voters are expected to believe that a candidate's promises are what we will get if they are elected.

That seems to be what the candidates want us to believe. We never hear them say, "This is what I will propose and, if elected, I will work with both parties in Congress to come as close as possible to achieving this policy." Of course, that's the most we can expect.

Recent history has shown a president will be lucky to make any progress, especially if the White House and the majority in one house of Congress are controlled by different parties.

We distrust government because politicians don't keep promises. But voters ought to remember that presidents and Congress need to agree, making keeping promises virtually impossible.

The myth that a candidate's promises produce presidential results is heavily promoted by political pundits. And they insert themselves directly by their analyses.

In a single debate statement, a Democratic candidate made the bold claim that he would seek to take back assault rifles. The pundits immediately concluded that all Democratic candidates would be negatively affected by that one candidate's promise. That may be the GOP line, but it's doubtful that anybody knows its effect, if any.

Sitting in their snug studios inside the Washington beltway, pundits profess to know immediately how voters from Maine to Hawaii will react to campaigns and candidates. If nothing else, such a snap analysis is an insult to voters.

Many people aren't yet paying much attention to next year's election. Others may remain open to persuasion at least on some issues. Right now hurricanes and home runs matter more than an election so far away.

That leaves the pundits free to make their picks. President Trump could win with a minority popular vote thanks to the electoral vote, they say. So his popularity with only 40 percent or less of the voters doesn't matter.

Pundits focus on the possible impeachment of Trump and its potential effects. That seems to go well beyond the interests of voters in having Congress get some work done in the remaining 15 months (out of a total of 24) for which it was elected.

The pundits are making their picks, dismissing many Democrats. Can a single debate miscue eliminate a candidate? Trump has shown that some voters will ignore significant defects if they like the results on issues that matter to them.

There are still months of political campaigning ahead. Campaigns take too long, but they cannot be prevented or ignored. Staying on the sidelines, voters are being treated more like sheep, led by so-called experts, than citizens. Voters cannot safely wait until the last few days of political campaigns to think about their choices.

In this historic campaign, voters should not leave it to the media minds. Question their predictions. It's never too soon to get involved, at least by focusing on the candidates and the issues.

Beware of giving too much weight too soon to the three "p's" -- polls, promises, and pundits.

Like British Tories, GOP turns hard right; moderate Collins should challenge Trump

Gordon L. Weil

The future of the Republican Party may be written in London.

The splintering of the British Conservative Party over Brexit looks remarkably similar to what might happen to the Republicans.

The Conservatives, known as Tories, were taken over by right-wing activists and tossed 21 members of Parliament out of the party after they refused to give the Prime Minister a blank check to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union.

U.K. voters had decided to quit the EU, mostly because they opposed more European immigrants and following EU rules.  Right-wing politicians seized on that vote, trying to force the U.K. to "crash out," while ignoring the economic cost and rebuilding barriers between the Republic of Ireland and the U.K.'s Northern Ireland.

They have an even more important political agenda.  They want to eliminate moderates and make the Conservative Party an anti-government, anti-immigrant party, seeking an impossible return to the past glories of the British Empire.  Boris Johnson, the colorful, former mayor of London, became their leader.  He had no Brexit plan.

Britain does not have a written constitution but relies on a collection of common understandings, developed over centuries, about how government is supposed to work.  The Tories split when Johnson abruptly overturned historic practices in a blatant grab for personal control, bypassing Parliament.

Some British wits have remarked that the unwritten constitution is now not even worth the paper it isn't written on.

Leading moderates announced they would put country above party and not support Johnson.  They were almost instantly expelled, meaning they could not run for office as Conservatives and probably ending most of their careers.  Johnson unsuccessfully sought a snap election in which he could seize control and win Conservative seats filled with new right-wingers.

The Conservatives face the opposition Labor Party, whose position is weakened by an unpopular leader, and several smaller parties, expected to gain from the collapse of traditional conservatism.  If enough Conservative voters are turned off by the next elections, Johnson's party could be reduced to a weakened hard-right force.

It's easy to see these events as a close parallel with the Republican Party today.

The GOP in the House of Representatives has been taken over by right-wingers.  The Senate often falls in line with President Trump, thanks to the tight control of Mitch McConnell, its Republican leader.  Like Johnson, he exercises power by overturning historic understandings about how congressional business is done.

At the heart of Republican strategy, thanks to Trump, is an anti-immigrant policy.  The U.S., like the U.K., would block new arrivals.  Like Brexit, his trade policy endangers the economy.

Trump also harks back to the past.  Under the guidance of historical right-wingers, he systematically strips the government of protections covering policies from civil rights to the environment.  He is changing the definition of what it means to be a Republican.

The GOP has also sought to drive out moderates.  Members of Congress must either line up with Trump or face primary challengers.  That can be a losing proposition, because many Republicans loyally support their party's president.

What will happen with traditional Republicans, pro-business and anti-big government, but who do not share the views or methods of Trump and the right-wingers? 

The party may slowly self-destruct as moderates are driven out and more non-whites and liberal youth become voters.  This is beginning to happen, and Democrats are gaining at the expense of Trump Republicans.  The party could survive as a minority, right-wing force.

Alternatively, traditional GOP leaders could try to recapture control of their party.  They could dump McConnell and show an increased willingness to compromise.  Of course, they might risk losing elections, a risk taken by the 21 British Conservatives.

Sen. Susan Collins could lead the resistance to a hard-right takeover.  She's the GOP's leading centrist, willing to seek workable compromises.  Instead of accepting the Trump party line, she could appeal to the endangered GOP mainstream.

Maine Sen. Margaret Chase Smith, Collins' proclaimed role model, courageously spoke out against a dangerous senator and his allies in her own party.  She later became the first woman to seriously seek the presidential nomination of a major party.

If Collins wants to run for office again, she might follow Smith's example and run against Trump for the GOP presidential nomination.  She is better known, with broader appeal, than Trump's three opponents.  A loyal Republican, she could provide a real alternative Trump could not ignore.

At this stage of her career, even losing by vigorously defying Trumpism, she would write more history than by running for re-election as a member of the current GOP.