Looking at One Person’s View On Impeachment

I write this on Thursday, December 19, 2019, for posting on Friday.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump. Passions are running high on both sides. One FB friend I never would have suspected is FOR impeachment, mainly on the charge of obstructing Congress. I have debated him on FB, saying the president has no obligation to cooperate with those who are trying to remove him from office.

In past similar situations, thinking mainly of Nixon, he also defied Congress. Congress took him to court and asked that the SCOTUS fast-track the process. In compliance with the court, Nixon handed over the subpoenaed items, they showed he had indeed committed crimes, and he would have been impeached had he not resigned.

That’s not what Congress has done here. They have subpoenaed Trump for documents and witnesses. These have not been produced. Rather than go to court to have them enforced, they just impeached him.

In the debate with my friend on FB, another friend said Trump had already committed impeachable offenses and he offered a video of Robert Reich from April 5, 2017 as proof. While I have no respect for this former Cabinet member, I decided to listen to his video to see if I may have overlooked anything. Reich suggests four impeachable offenses at that time, with a fifth one brewing. Let’s look at them

One: Trump is “unfaithfully” executing his duties as president by accusing his predecessor, President Obama, of undertaking an illegal and impeachable act, with absolutely no evidence to support the accusation.

Sorry, Mr. Reich, but no one appointed you of what is or is not faithful or unfaithful execution of office. It is unfaithful execution to criticize your predecessor? Give me a break. This is ridiculous.

Two: The Constitution forbids government officials from taking things of value from foreign governments. But Trump is making big money off his Trump International Hotel by steering foreign diplomatic delegations to it. And will make a bundle off China’s recent decision to grant his trademark applications for the Trump brand, decisions Chinese authorities arrived at directly because of decisions Trump has made as president.

Is Trump “steering” business to his hotel? Or are foreign delegations using it because it’s a good venue in Washington DC? Is Trump donating the profits from that hotel to charity? Hardly impeachable. And, as to China, has any president in the last 100 years been tougher on China than Trump? Reich, your argument doesn’t hold up.

Three: Trump’s ban on travel into the U.S. from 6 Muslim countries, which he initiated, advocated for, and oversees—violated [the free exercise of religion clause].

The courts struck down that travel ban and it wasn’t enforced. How can it be impeachable when Trump complied with the court? Again, Mr. Reich, that’s ridiculous. I also point out (since you don’t seem to know this), that there are some 30 Muslim majority countries. If travel from individuals of six of those were banned, then travel from individuals from 24 of them was allowed. That’s hardly against the free exercise of religion.

Four: Trump’s labeling the press the “enemy of the people” and choosing whom he invites to news conferences based on whether they’ve given him favorable coverage, violates [the freedom of the press provision of Amendment 1].

What Reich is saying is the president cannot criticize the press. How did this criticism prevent them from doing their job? It didn’t. They were still free to publish. He denied them an audience. Guess what, Mr. Reich, the First Amendment doesn’t grant the press an audience. The president is free to give interviews to whom he wants to.

Five: Evidence is mounting that Trump and his aides colluded with Russian operatives to win the 2016 presidential election—which Reich says meets the definition of treason.

Reich was so wrong on this, where to begin? Several investigations failed to find the alleged collusion. The evidence mounted against this. If this took place, it happened while Trump was a candidate. Do you really think a president can be impeached for things he did before he was president? I think not.

I’ve never liked Reich, never thought he had the country’s best interests at heart. Now I’m sure of it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *