The Debate Over the Articles of Impeachment

It was a historic week for the nation as the House Judiciary Committee debated articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, two articles charging him with abuse of power for asking Ukraine to investigate Joe Bidenweil withholding aid as leverage, and obstruction of Congress for stonewalling the House's investigation. Trump trying to downplay the impeachment at a rally in Pennsylvania on Tuesday. This is the lightest impeachment in the history of our

country by far. It's not even like an impeachment. My guest is Harold Crant, a professor at Chicago Kent College of Law. So, Harold, President Trump is calling this impeachment light. Is that historically accurate? Colling not I. An impeachment is an impeachment, and it's a constitutionally based measure from which the Congress can determine the appropriateness of an officer to continue in that position. And whether there are ten articles of impeachment or two is in this case, whether they're

based upon treason or based upon abuse of office. It's all the same constitutional means and check and balance to make sure that someone's food for office. The Democrats really kept these articles of impeachment narrow. What do you think of their strategy? The first surprise to me was that nothing about the Muller investigation and Russian influence into the

prior election was included. I actually agreed with that decision by no, it's controversial, and I think it's controversial because not think it's Republicans, but because the Democrats some felt that they had some kind of loyalty or duty to not in that direction, given all that had gone on and all that the president reportedly did to obstruct the investigation, that there would be something about that episode in our history included. So that's the first surprise. Clearly, anti Plosi

didn't want that. She felt that the members of the public were turned off by the Russian investigation, by the moral reported, by the fact that nothing really happened with it, and so I think she made a safe political call to exercise that whole chapter from the impeachment proceedings. But the second interesting angle is the fact that no crime specifically was mentioned in the abuse of power article of impeachment.

And I think that the goal of the Democrats there was to try not to say that this is illegalistic, but to say that the whole Ukraine quid pro quo was an abuse of authority, abuse of loyalty to the country, to the fighting forces of Ukraine and their competition against Russia, and that what you call it briber, theft of honor services or a campaign violation, The point is it's an abuse of authority and you don't want a president putting a personal gain above that of the country. So that

was their angle. But that does open up a window, if you will, a crack for the Republicans to say, look, the Democrats haven't even said that the whole Ukraine episode is tantam out to a specific crime, And what they're saying is, come on, now, you may not like what the president did, and it's you know, maybe unclear, but if it's not a crime, why are you thinking that

you should push for impeachment for it? Impeachment should be for something like a high crime and misdemeanor, trees and bribery, something of that sort, and knew the Democrats have not even labeled what the president did with any specific crimes. So that's the terrain, and I certainly understand the Democrats strategy. I think Republicans are turning it around as most effectively

as they can. And the real question is where the public that they care one way or the other about how the Democrats have positioned this or how the Republicans have responded. So, going into the Senate trial, which appears inevitable right now, does Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have the power to determine what happens there. He does in the sense that absence something happening in the near future, the

votes seem to be there to support the president. The process is something that you can go a lot of different ways on. I mean, maybe they'll be witnesses or probably won't be witnesses, but that's something that McConnell will decide in the best interests of his party, and most people think that it's in the best interests of his party not to have witnesses, because if you have a parade of Republicans pointing a figure at the president that's

likely to undermine support for the president. Though obviously President Trump has said that he'd love to see Hunter Biden testify before the Senate um as well. But I think that the Democrats should take them up on that. If they allow John Bolton to testify, who's the Republican who probably was outside because of his disagreement with the foreign policy choices of the President, that they would be willing to have Hunter Biden there as well. So it's a

process determination. There's nothing in the Constitution about it. It's really up to the Senate to create that that process, and my guests at this point is it will be streamlined because the Republicans are confident they have the votes to um equip the president of these two articles of impeachment. Two Republican senators told CNN that McConnell is expecting to hold a final vote to acquit Trump instead of holding a vote on dismissing the articles of impeachment. Is that

purely so that Trump can say he was acquitted? Is there any difference there? I don't, I think so. I mean, there's a procedural wrinkle as you suggested. I think the question begind of the day is will the Senate vote with two thirds majority to affirm or to convict on the impeachment articles presented by the House, and whether they decided to dismiss them or to acquit. It really comes down to the same thing, is that they are deciding

not to remove the president from office. The expectation from the beginning has been that Trump will be impeached in the House, but not convicted in the Senate. And as you know, no president has been removed from office in our history. Were the Framers wrong to mandate sixty seven votes to remove a president a barrier that hasn't been reached in the nearly two d fifty years of our

nation's history. Well, it's worth repeating that the Framers didn't understand about political parties, had no way for telling that they would play such a huge role in American politics. Have they understood the dynamical political parties, perhaps they would have devised a different procedure, but that's not to say that the procedure is lacking in force. The impeachment specter, if you will, they cause federal officers as well as the president to act more responsibly while they're in office.

And as you pointed out, we've really only had two presidents impeached in our history. Both were not removed from office, but proceeding against President Nixon could lead him to resign so that he would not be removed from office. So I think the fact that it hasn't been used that much doesn't suggest that it doesn't have some still vital role to play in our separation of powers and structure,

and I think it may well do. The wild card in this is that the Supreme Court is deciding this week likely whether to take the two text cases against Trump ordering him to divulge his taxes, And if they decline to take up those cases, those tax returns will have to be delivered immediately on one case to the prosecutor's New yorkular case to the House. And what if the President frump continues to flout judicial orders. That would then open up the House for a another impeachment article.

And I think that the some Senate memories will start peeling off at that point and saying you can't have a president who is above the law. And it's one thing to have the president ignore what Congress requests that seems to be typical government in fighting. But it's another thing that when the president ignores what a judge requires, So that's a wild card. It may not happen, but the Supreme Court will have to make that determination very soon.

Chief Justice John Roberts frequently talks about how the Court is above politics. Well, now he is going to be presiding over the impeachment trial in the Senate. What's his role? Is it purely procedural? This is an open, untruged waters. I mean, I do think that Chief Justice Roberts cares very deeply about the image and the incentity of the cord in our system of separation of powers. He's voted that way in several key cases. He's talked about that

in lectures. I think he'll try to run a trial narrowly deciding procedural issues, try to channel the issues, try to make sure that it's a streamlined, efficient process. I think he would try to avoid assiduously any kind of situation which would cause him to seem to delve his own toe into the political waters in terms of setting one way or another way. And I think contempt would be always possible, but I think it's it's unlikely, and he would try to avoid that at all steps possible.

I do think that, just to make a long answer short, he would try everything is disposal to be as neutral of an arbor as he could during the Senate trial. Thanks Harold, that's Harold Granted, professor at the Chicago cand College of Law. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg m