>>> TO IMPEACH OR NOT TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP U.
THAT’S THE QUESTION SWIRLING
THROUGH WASHINGTON SINCE THE
RELEASE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S
FINAL REPORT
FINAL REPORT LET’S TAKE A MOMENT TO WALK
THROUGH WHAT IT IS
YOU CAN FIND IT UNDER ARTICLE
TWO SECTION FOUR OF THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION WHICH READS THE
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND
ALL CIVIL OFFICERS OF THE UNITED
STATES SHALL BE REMOVED FROM
OFFICE ON IMPEACHMENT FOR AND ON
CONVICTION OF TREASON, BRIBERY
OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS
MISDEMEANORS IT WAS FIRST BROUGHT UP AT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN
1787
1787 CHAMPIONED BY ALEXANDRIAER HAMIL
WHERE OFFICIALS COULD BE REMOVED
FOR MAL AND CORRUPT CONDUCT.
JAMES MADISON SAW THE CLAUSE AS
QUOTE INDISPENSABLE FOR
DEFENDING THE COMMUNITY AGAINST
THE INCAPACITY, NEGLIGENCE OR
PREFTY OF THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE
BY THE WAY, PREFTY MEANS DECEIT
FULNESS OF UNTRUSTWORTHYNESS
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE
PRESIDENT DOESN’T NEED TO COMMIT
ACTUAL CRIMES.
ACTUAL CRIMES. IT CAN BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF
POLITICAL MISTAKES OR OFFENSES
AND DOESN’T NECESSARILY MEAN
THAT A PRESIDENT WILL BE REMOVED
FOR, FROM OFFICE FOR OFFENSES.
FOR INSTANCE, PRESIDENT JACKSON
WAS IMPEACHED ON CHARGES
SORRY, ANDREW JOHNSON WAS ITCH
PEOPLED ON CHARGES OF INSULTING
CONGRESS, BUT JUST BECAUSE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE
FILED, DOESN’T NECESSARILY MEAN
THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL BE
REMOVED FROM OFFICE.
BUT IT’S A SYSTEM VIEWED AS
CONTROVERSIAL.
CONTROVERSIAL. AND POLITICAL.
AND POLITICAL. BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT HAS NO
SAY IN THE MATTER.
THIS IS ENTIRELY UP TO MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS.
OF CONGRESS. ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WOULD
REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY TO
PASS IN THE HOUSE WHICH IS
CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS.
THE SENATE WOULD THEN HAVE THE
POWER TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT WITH
A TWO-THIRDS VOTE.
THE HOUSE ALONE RESERVES THE
RIGHT TO IMPEACH
SO YOU COULD COMPLETELY BE
IMPEACHED IN THE HOUSE
REMOVAL FROM OFFICE ONLY HAPPENS
ONCE THE SENATE CONVICTS AND
THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE IN
HISTORY.
HISTORY. CONSIDERING THE SENATE IS
CONTROLLED BY REPUBLICANS,
IMPEACHMENT SEEMS VERY, VERY
UNLIKELY
UNLIKELY JOINING US NOW IS THE PRESIDENT
OF THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION
CENTER
CENTER JEFF ROSEN
JEFF ROSEN I TRIED TO NOT EMBARRASS MYSELF
BY LAYING THAT OUT AS CLEARLY AS
WE CAN, BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP
TWEETED ONLY HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS CAN LEAD TO
IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. R THERE WERE NO CRIMES BY ME, NO
COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION.
SO YOU CAN’T IMPEACH
THAT’S NOT EXACTLY TRUE.
WHAT’S YOUR INTERPRETATION OF
WHERE THE CONSTITUTION STANDS ON
HOW TO HANDLE THIS MATTER?
>> FIRST OF ALL, YOU SUMMED IT
UP EXTREMELY WELL AND ALTHOUGH
AS UB, YOU DON’T NEED A CRIME TO
CONSTITUTE A HIGH CRIME, IF
CONGRESS DECIDED THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP DID COMMIT A CRIME IN
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, THAT WOULD
COUNT AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE
AS ITD DIDIT DID IF THE PRESIDEN
CLINTON SO THEY LEAVE IT AS AN
OPEN QUESTION AND IF THE
CONGRESS DECIDED HE DID, THIS
WOULD BE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACH M
THERE’S AN INTERESTING DEBATE
ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT CAN
OBSTRUCT JUSTICE WHEN HE
EXERCISES HIS INSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITIES SUCH AS FIRING JAMES
COMEY.
COMEY. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR SAID NO.
THE MUELLER TEAM REACHED THE
OPPOSITE CONCLUSION AND THINKS
THE PRESIDENT CAN OBSTRUCT
JUSTICE MERELY IF HIS ACTIONS
HAVE THE EFFECT OF STOPPING AN
INVESTIGATION OR OBSTRUCTING IT.
SO THAT’S A DEBATE CONGRESS CAN
HAVE AND THE QUESTION OF
OBSTRUCTION IS FRONT AND CENTER
AS CONGRESS DECIDES WHETHER OR
NOT TO IMPEACH
>> CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND
THE CONSEQUENCES OF IMPEACHMENT?
WHEN I THINK BACK TO BILL
CLINTON, BESIDES REPUTATIONAL
DAMAGE, WHAT DID IT ACTUALLY DO?
HE KEPT HIS JOB --
>> IF THE HE WASN’T REMOVED FROM
OFFICE
OFFICE >> I’M PRETTY SURE WHEN HE LEFT
OFFICE, HE WAS PROBABLY THE
HIGHEST PAID FORMER PRESIDENT IN
TERMS OF GIVING SPEECHES, SO
WHAT’S THE ACTUAL IMPACT
IF HE ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH THIS
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, COULDN’T
HE SAY THE NEXT DAY, YEP, STILL
AT THE WHITE HOUSE, STILL HAVING
STEAK AND CHERRY PIE
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> ABSOLUTELY. IF ANYTHING, AS YOU SAID,
IMPEACHMENT BOOSTED PRESIDENT
CLINTON’S POPULARITY AND MAYBE
EVEN HELPED DEMOCRATS.
IT IS AN EMBARRASSMENT IN THE
EYES OF HISTORY.
IT’S SIGNIFICANT THAT ONLY TWO
PEOPLE HAVE EVER BEEN IMPEACH ED
BY THE HOUSE
PRESIDENT NIXON ALMOST WAS, BUT
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS OF
EMBARRASSING A PRESIDENT, TOO.
CONGRESS CAN SENNTURE THE
PRESIDENT AS IT DID ANDREW
JACKSON.
JACKSON. HE WAS SO UPSET ABOUT THAT HE HE
GOT IT REMOVED AFTER ANOTHER
CONGRESS CAME IN
>> EVEN THAT, WHAT WOULD
SENTTURING THIS PARTICULAR
PRESIDENT DO
PRESIDENT DO WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT
>> IT WOULD BE A STAIN IN THE
EYE OF HISTORY
RIGHT NOW, IT MAY SEEM THAT THE
PRESIDENT OR OTHERS ARE IMMUNE
TO EMBARRASSMENT
TO EMBARRASSMENT BUT IT’S REALLY SIGNIFICANT.
THAT WE HAVE ONLY HAD TWO
PRESIDENTS IMPEACHED, ONE
SENNTURED IN AMERICAN HISTORY
AND IT WOULD BE INSCRIBED
FOREVER IN THE HISTORY BOOKS IF
HE WERE.
HE WERE. >> LET’S TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS.
THE HOUSE CAN IMPEEF
PEACH.
PEACH. SENATE CONVICTS.
SENATE CONVICTS. THE HOUSE IS DEMOCRATICALLY
CONTROLLED
CONTROLLED SENATE IS REPUBLICAN
SO CONVICTION IS JUST NOT SORT
OF SOMETHING THAT IS ON THE
BOOKS AT THE MOMENT.
SO WHAT’S THE PURPOSE OF
IMPEACHMENT?
IMPEACHMENT? NOT THE REPUTATIONAL DAMAGE.
BUT THERE ARE, THERE’S AN
ARGUMENT THAT IS MADE THAT SAYS
IMPEACHMENT IS A PROCESS OF
INVESTIGATING POTENTIAL WRONG
DOING AND THAT’S THE PROCESS
THAT CONGRESS HAS GIVEN.
THERE ARE SOME ARGUING DON’T
WHETHER WHAT THE OUTCOME IS.
WORRY ABOUT THE FACT IT’S A
CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION ON
CONGRESS
CONGRESS >> AS YOU SAID IN YOUR EXCELLENT
INTRODUCTION, IT’S A MIX OF
POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL
CONSIDERATIONS
CONSIDERATIONS CONGRESS COULD CONCLUDE THAT
OBSTRUCTION DID RISE TO THE
LEVEL OF AN IMPEACH OBL FENCE,
BUT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS
UNLIKELY TO BE CONVICTED, IT
COULD DECIDE NOT TO IMPEACH.
IT COULD DECIDE THAT THE
HEARINGS THEMSELVES ARE A WAY OF
OPENING THE EVIDENCE UP TO THE
AMERICAN PUBLIC SO WE THE PEOPLE
CAN DECIDE AND THERE ARE
IMPEACHMENT IS UNNECESSARY
THERE’S NO OBLIGATION UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION TO IMPEACH OR NOT
AND THAT’S WHY THE DEMOCRATS
FACE A TOUGH POLITICAL AND
CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGMENT RIGHT
NOW.
NOW. >> BUT IF DEMOCRATS DO NOTHING,
DOES THIS THEN RESET THE BAR FOR
ACCEPTABLE CONDUCT
ACCEPTABLE CONDUCT IT WAS JUST TWO DAYS AGO THAT
RUDY GIULIANI WAS ON TV SAYING
YEP, NO BIG DEAL TO GET
INFORMATION FROM A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT
GOVERNMENT >> THAT’S A REALLY IMPORTANT
QUESTION
QUESTION >> YES
>> YES >> AND DEMOCRATS CONCLUDE THIS
IS CONDUCT THAT HAS BEEN
IMPEACHABLE IN THE PAST.
THEY MIGHT DECIDE THAT THEY NEED
TO DO SOMETHING THAT COULD JUST
INVOLVE HEARINGS, WHICH WOULD
LAY OUT THE CHARGES.