Impeachment Blog
For my blog I read the transcript of an episode of a podcast hosted by the University of Chicago called Big Brains where a presidential scholar, William Howell, came on as a guest to discuss the impeachment situation.
One of the first points made that interested me was that impeachment proceedings being based on what they were rather than any previous accusations on the president had a good amount to do with just how well-written the whistleblower's report was, compared to, for example, Robert Mueller's report. Howell actually mentions several times the importance of well-presented arguments and seems to generally conclude presentation will be more important than facts in deciding the verdict. On that note, he expresses concern at the power the president has to affect general perception of the issue. He also discusses the historical context of other impeachment hearings and how he feels this one differs from others and is particularly critical in that it will set precedent for the forseeable future for the relationship between Congress and the Oval Office.
Personally, I don't feel like I understand things enough to come to a conclusive verdict. From what I do know though, which I acknowledge comes from a biased and limited viewpoint, it does seem like the president doesn't have a very good case. For one I think calling an investigation of an apparently pretty verifiable report about the president of the country commiting a crime a "witch-hunt" seems pretty unfair, it seems at least a valid thing to look into, and I think even though there can be valid reasons for it, generally barring key witnesses from speaking isn't a super innocent thing to do. One thing brought up in the article that caught my attention was mention of Republicans who acknowledge the possibility that the president commited bribery with Ukraine but say it would not be in the best interest of the country to remove him from office. I don't know enough to know how many share this particular argument or whether its defenders have since updated their point of view, but either way it seems certainly at points to have been expressed by some. On some level I see the merit in this argument. Direct consequences aside like the vice president becoming the new president, I wonder about the precedent this would set. This impeachment is concerned primarily with legal issues, but as the article points out, impeachment as outlined in the Constitution can be purely about personality. A president can be removed from office without commiting crimes. So one point might be that impeaching on this specific issue devalues others. It's like condeming this one of the president's actions implicitly forgives any previous impeachables actions of his. Or to go further, impeaching this president sets a line for what is unacceptable in the Oval Office, but says implicitly that what he has done is worse than what any previous president has, and thus implicitly forgives the offenses of all past presidents. And certainly, to carry this impeachment through now on this issue would be to, in some sense, demonstrate that our nation is willing to remove a president in office for bribery but not for bigotry or the carrying out of questionably motivated wars. I think that's bad reasoning though. Even if so many people have been in office who had no business doing so, up to and including the current one, and even if they will continue to long after, I think its still worth starting now, when an opportunity is present, at making a catalog of things that are unacceptable. I understand the sentiment that the our nation's governmental system is fundamentally broken and that taking any actions within it only legitimizes it, but also it is the system we live in and to refuse to act within it for the time being is only to hand over more power to those willing to use it. In conclusion, I maybe ought to have written this before 5 AM the morning its due, but it does seem there is cause to remove the president from office.
Source:
"Leading Presidential Scholar Analyzes Trump Impeachment with William Howell (Ep. 32)." uchicago news, University of Chicago Office of Communications, https://news.uchicago.edu/podcasts/big-brains/presidential-scholars-analysis-trump-impeachment
One of the first points made that interested me was that impeachment proceedings being based on what they were rather than any previous accusations on the president had a good amount to do with just how well-written the whistleblower's report was, compared to, for example, Robert Mueller's report. Howell actually mentions several times the importance of well-presented arguments and seems to generally conclude presentation will be more important than facts in deciding the verdict. On that note, he expresses concern at the power the president has to affect general perception of the issue. He also discusses the historical context of other impeachment hearings and how he feels this one differs from others and is particularly critical in that it will set precedent for the forseeable future for the relationship between Congress and the Oval Office.
Personally, I don't feel like I understand things enough to come to a conclusive verdict. From what I do know though, which I acknowledge comes from a biased and limited viewpoint, it does seem like the president doesn't have a very good case. For one I think calling an investigation of an apparently pretty verifiable report about the president of the country commiting a crime a "witch-hunt" seems pretty unfair, it seems at least a valid thing to look into, and I think even though there can be valid reasons for it, generally barring key witnesses from speaking isn't a super innocent thing to do. One thing brought up in the article that caught my attention was mention of Republicans who acknowledge the possibility that the president commited bribery with Ukraine but say it would not be in the best interest of the country to remove him from office. I don't know enough to know how many share this particular argument or whether its defenders have since updated their point of view, but either way it seems certainly at points to have been expressed by some. On some level I see the merit in this argument. Direct consequences aside like the vice president becoming the new president, I wonder about the precedent this would set. This impeachment is concerned primarily with legal issues, but as the article points out, impeachment as outlined in the Constitution can be purely about personality. A president can be removed from office without commiting crimes. So one point might be that impeaching on this specific issue devalues others. It's like condeming this one of the president's actions implicitly forgives any previous impeachables actions of his. Or to go further, impeaching this president sets a line for what is unacceptable in the Oval Office, but says implicitly that what he has done is worse than what any previous president has, and thus implicitly forgives the offenses of all past presidents. And certainly, to carry this impeachment through now on this issue would be to, in some sense, demonstrate that our nation is willing to remove a president in office for bribery but not for bigotry or the carrying out of questionably motivated wars. I think that's bad reasoning though. Even if so many people have been in office who had no business doing so, up to and including the current one, and even if they will continue to long after, I think its still worth starting now, when an opportunity is present, at making a catalog of things that are unacceptable. I understand the sentiment that the our nation's governmental system is fundamentally broken and that taking any actions within it only legitimizes it, but also it is the system we live in and to refuse to act within it for the time being is only to hand over more power to those willing to use it. In conclusion, I maybe ought to have written this before 5 AM the morning its due, but it does seem there is cause to remove the president from office.
Source:
"Leading Presidential Scholar Analyzes Trump Impeachment with William Howell (Ep. 32)." uchicago news, University of Chicago Office of Communications, https://news.uchicago.edu/podcasts/big-brains/presidential-scholars-analysis-trump-impeachment
Comments