Monday, September 30, 2019

Explaining the Impeachment Chatter to a German

Germans have begun to have an interest in the impeachment talk.  One could make this a 70-page blog on every single detail, but I'll try to limit this to twelve observations:

1.  There is this unique feature in the Constitution which allows for impeachment of a federal official.  The basic charges available?  Bribery, treason, high crimes, and misdemeanors.

2.  Past use?  1866 with President Johnson (failed impeachment), attempted use in 1974 with the House committee having prepared charges on President Johnson (he resigned before he proceed on), and in 1998 with President Clinton (failed impeachment).

3.  It is a three-step process.  A House committee would have hearings and gather evidence.  It would be voted upon in the committee and proceed to a House vote.  Second step involves the House voting to push the paperwork to the Senate, which requires only a simple majority (50-percent plus one).  Third step involves a Senate hearing, and this ends with a vote....requiring a super-majority (66 Senators) to convict (out of 100 total).

4.  Since the early 60s, how many Republican Presidents have been threatened with impeachment?  All of them, except Ford.  Continual threat but never executing the impeachment process?  This is part of the drama.

5.  Who heads the Senate hearing?  The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court basically shuts down in this period.

6.  Rules?  There's simply a very limited number of rules.  There's probably enough to fill one single page.

7.  This super-majority preventing conviction?  Well, this is the amusing part of the story.  In this case currently, the Democrats can only count on 47 votes.  There's two independent Senators, and the Republicans have the majority.  You would have to get 20-plus Republican senators to cross the line.  The odds of this?  Some would suggest one in a million odds.

8.  More of a TV drama than anything else?  The episode with President Clinton in 1998 helped to form up cable TV, and create dramatic political 'opera' for the public over the past twenty years.  Some people believe massive public sentiment shifts during these periods....there's no proof or evidence of this.

9. Length of time.  Well, you can generally expect the first step to take a minimum of six weeks....maybe up to twelve weeks.  The second step will involve around two to three days of speeches in the House, and then a vote.  The last step in the Senate?  This is wide open.  It could last five to eight days.  It could go on for six to ten weeks.  The chief justice could limit evidence but that could be openly challenged.

10.  If President Trump were convicted, who takes over?  VP Pence, and he would pick a replacement VP....to be confirmed by the Senate.

11.  The campaign funds being collected by Team-Trump during this period?  Well, it's actually helping Trump by creating this drama period, and there's tens of millions flowing into his campaign chest.  Back in August, some analysts were speculating that Trump would have one-billion dollars by early spring (an all-time record).  If anything....it's helping to bring even more cash in, and helps him if they fail on impeachment.  If he were to be impeached....what happens to the billion-dollar campaign pot?  Trump could use it for any campaign purpose in 2020.

12.  One impeachment, and that's it?  Not really.  Lets say the impeachment goes and fails (the likely outcome).  You could find another cause and trigger a second impeachment by March, and go for number two.  If that fails, then onto impeachment number three, four and five.  The chief problem in this....each failure leads the public to discount your credibility to dramatize politics.

So all of this could just come to a failed impeachment (like Johnson and Clinton)?  Yes.  Could negative information come out on the former Obama White House and various Democrats?  There is some speculation that opening this up....will create a ethical problem for some individuals.

The public frustration?  If you were frustrated with politics in 2016....this only doubles your negative view of Washington DC, and general politics.

No comments: