Not So ImPeachy-Keen

It is so confusing as a Republican looking at this “Ukraine Impeachment” controversy. Here is what we know, the rest is up to speculation:

• “On Sept. 24, 2019, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the beginning of an official impeachment inquiry against President Trump, only the fourth time Congress has taken up this type of inquiry into a president. Calls for an inquiry had grown after Trump acknowledged asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Joe Biden, a key political rival.” (WaPo)

• Democrats did not follow usual procedure, as House republicans pointed out, in starting the inquiry, which usually has the House take a vote on whether to start a formal impeachment inquiry or not. However, it is not a constitutional requirement to do so.

• Deposition: Former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch met with lawmakers for nearly 10 hours at a closed-door deposition today.

• Giuliani associates arrested: Two men who are reported to have been involved in helping Rudy Giuliani try to dig up dirt on Joe Biden in Ukraine were arrested and charged with campaign finance violations.

• Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, is facing an investigation by federal prosecutors into whether his involvement with Ukraine violated federal lobbying laws, The New York Times reported on Friday.

• Fox News Poll: Record support for Trump impeachment: A new high of 51 percent wants Trump impeached and removed from office, another 4 percent want him impeached but not removed, and 40 percent oppose impeachment altogether. In July, 42 percent favored impeachment and removal, while 5 percent said impeach but don’t remove him, and 45 percent opposed impeachment. (Fox News)

• Ambassador Sondland will testify next week over the State Department’s objections, his lawyer says. (NYTimes)

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust." (THE FEDERALIST No. 65 Alexander Hamilton). However, the Constitutional Convention had rejected certain language that would have permitted impeachment for "maladministration,” with James Madison arguing "[s]o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate." [Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 729-30 (1986)] So, here is the bigger question, is what happened on the Ukraine call a violation of public trust, but not only that…was it under the umbrella term of “misconduct” rather than just mere “maladministration” as the founders reasoned. Some obviously think so, but now it’s looking like the whistle-blower started it for politically biased reasons. “The memo says that the Intelligence Community Inspector General found the Whistle-blower's complaint credible but also unearthed ‘some indicia of an arguable political bias’ by the Whistle-blower” (Heavy).

Congress, itself, has stated three types of misconduct that “constitute grounds for impeachment”: “(1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; (2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and (3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.” [Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, 93rd Conf. 2nd Sess. (Feb. 1974)]

So herein lies the question:

• Did Trump abuse the power or exceed the power of the office? The answer must be NO. Trump can call foreign ministers/presidents. The President is allowed to withhold aid and so on and so forth.

• Did Trump behave incompatibly with the function and purpose of the office? The answer here is MAYBE. And, this is where it gets dicey. Trump can argue he was withholding the aid on account of Ukrainian corruption – which is compatible with the function of his office. Because he is the executive, he has the power and the discretion to dole out the aid as he sees appropriate. If, however, Trump had what people are calling a “quid pro quo” on the call with the Ukrainian President, then he did indeed violate the second of the criteria and would be subject to impeachable offenses as stated by Congress.

• Did Trump misuse the Office for an improper purpose or for personal gain? Again, the answer is MAYBE. And the case against the President is made worse by who the President presents himself (or basically is) as a person. His narcissistic tendencies only exacerbate the problems he is constantly finding himself in. It is also arguably the only thing that helps him stay afloat in the political sphere. It is very suspicious though the timing of this withholding of aid to Ukraine – in the throws of a hotly contested Democratic Primary season where one of the contestants he polls poorly against happens to be the man brought up in the phone call.