AP Analysis: It doesn't take a crime to impeach a president

September 27, 2019

               

President Donald Trump pauses to talk as he leaves a ceremony with members of law enforcement on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 26, 2019. The president was given a plaque of appreciation from America's Sheriffs and Angel Families.

WASHINGTON If House Democrats press ahead with impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, their case will rest in large part on the claim that he sought a foreign government's help, with hundreds of millions of dollars in aid in the balance, to dig up dirt on a political opponent to boost his reelection campaign.

But, if true, would that be a crime? The answer might not matter. It doesn't take a criminal act to impeach a president.

The Constitution's standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors" for impeachment is vague and open-ended to encompass abuses of power even if they aren't, strictly speaking, illegal, legal scholars say.

The controversy centers on a summertime phone call in which Trump asked the president of Ukraine to help investigate Democratic political rival Joe Biden, according to a rough transcript the White House provided on Wednesday. A whistleblower's complaint released Thursday alleged a concerted White House effort to suppress the transcript of the call and described a shadow campaign of diplomacy by Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.

The Justice Department doesn't think Trump violated any laws in his July 25 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said, "I think we ought to go through the process. I mean, no one has shown me what law has been broken."

But the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., described several potential crimes that could have been committed if Trump withheld "authorized funding of Congress to use as leverage, if the president were involved in somehow extorting a foreign nation to dig up or manufactured dirt on his opponent, if there was an effort to cover up any of this conduct."

Both Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called Trump's actions a "shakedown."

The Constitution provides for the impeachment and removal of the president, and other officers of the government, for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The first two offenses are relatively easy to understand, but "high crimes and misdemeanors" is hard to define.

"It's meant to convey the idea that the person has badly flouted the terms of office. Even if he didn't commit a criminal offense, did he do something that constitutes an abuse of power?" said Corey Brettschneider, a political science professor at Brown University.

In 1970, then-House Republican leader Gerald Ford, defined an impeachable offense as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives" would vote for.

Ford's description may have been technically accurate it takes a majority vote in the House to impeach but many legal scholars find what Ford said too nakedly political and not in accord with U.S. history.

On the other hand, the burden of proof in impeachment is, despite the term "high crimes," lower than the standard in criminal cases, which is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defenders of the president in past impeachments typically made the argument that the House shouldn't impeach unless the president has committed a crime, said Frank Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor and author of "A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump."

"The argument has a lot of resonance with people. It seems almost commonsensically right," but it has not been the case in more than 600 years of English and American law, Bowman said.

Bowman said Trump's actions illustrate his point. "You don't impeach the guy because he violated a fairly technical election statute. You impeach him because he extorted a foreign country into giving him political help," he said.

In the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, Republicans who controlled the House impeached Clinton on the charges of obstructing justice and lying to a grand jury in connection with his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. But when the Senate held a trial on those charges, 10 Republicans joined Democrats to acquit Clinton on one count and five Republicans voted to acquit on the other.

Republicans never succeeded in convincing a majority of the country that their pursuit of Clinton was not partisan or that the misconduct he was accused of, essentially lying about an affair, was serious enough to warrant his removal from office.

By contrast, in 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned after the House Judiciary Committee voted for three articles of impeachment against him for obstruction of justice, abuse of power and contempt of Congress. Congressional Republicans, who had largely supported Nixon in the early days of the Watergate investigation, made clear they would not stand by him after the release of recordings revealed his role in trying to cover up the break-in at the Democratic Party's headquarters that sparked the scandal.

At this point, it seems far-fetched to think that the impeachment of Trump in the Democratic-controlled House would lead to his removal by a two-thirds vote of the Republican-led Senate. That would require 20 Republican senators to vote to oust him an unlikely prospect, crime or no crime.


How the White House and DOJ learned about the whistleblower

WASHINGTON The White House and the Justice Department learned about a CIA officer's concerns about President Donald Trump around the same time the individual filed a whistleblower complaint that is now at the center of an impeachment inquiry, according to a U.S. official and another person familiar with the matter.

The intelligence official initially filed a complaint about Trump's dealings with Ukraine with the CIA, which then alerted the White House and Justice. On Aug. 12, the intelligence official raised another flag, this time with the intelligence community's inspector general, a process that granted the individual more legal protections.

During that time, the inspector general's complaint, which centered on Trump's dealings with Ukraine, remained private. But information about the whistleblower was already making its way through the administration: On Aug. 14, White House counsel John Eisenberg and a CIA official alerted the head of DOJ's national security division about the original complaint to the CIA.

John Demers, who leads the national security division, went to the White House the next day to review materials associated with the call. He then alerted people within the Justice Department, but it was unclear specifically who he told.

In the following weeks, Demers had discussions with other Justice Department officials about how to handle the CIA complaint, according to the person familiar with the matter. It was during that period that the Justice Department also received a notification from the intelligence community's inspector general about a whistleblower complaint.

The timeline raises questions about how the White House and the Justice Department handled the complaint. The administration initially blocked Congress from viewing the complaint, citing presidential privilege, and only released a redacted version of the report to lawmakers this week after the impeachment inquiry had begun.

The House intelligence committee released the complaint on Thursday. The nine-page letter details a July 25 phone call in which Trump presses Ukraine's leader to help investigate baseless corruption accusations against Democratic rival Joe Biden. The complaint also alleges that the White House sought to "lock down" details of the call by moving it onto a secure, classified computer system.

The complaint also details extensive interactions between Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal attorney, and Ukrainian officials.

The person familiar with the matter, as well as another person with knowledge of the case, confirmed that the whistleblower was a CIA officer.

The Associated Press is publishing information about the whistleblower's background because the person's credibility is central to the impeachment inquiry into the president. The New York Times first reported that the individual was a CIA officer.

The U.S. official and the two people familiar with the matter spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

The whistleblower's attorney, Mark Zaid, said publishing details about the individual places the person in a dangerous situation, personally and professionally. The CIA referred questions to the inspector general.

 

 

Associated Press