What constitutes 'impeachable' conduct?
Loading...
| Washington
Dear reader:
What constitutes an impeachable offense?
In the wake of last week鈥檚 hearings, some Trump defenders have been arguing that while the president鈥檚 interactions with Ukraine may not have been 鈥減erfect,鈥 none of it rises to the level of impeachment.
Why We Wrote This
Ultimately, a majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate will get to define what鈥檚 impeachable 鈥 and that may hinge on a number of factors.
Retiring GOP Rep. Will Hurd 鈥 a moderate Texan who鈥檚 been willing to criticize the president 鈥 called Mr. Trump鈥檚 July 25th phone conversation with the president of Ukraine 鈥渋nappropriate,鈥 but said 鈥渁n impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelming, clear and unambiguous.鈥 In his view, the evidence presented so far does not meet that standard.
Likewise, 鈥淧resident Donald Trump has not been credibly accused of committing any crime, much less a high crime or misdemeanor,鈥澛犅燭he Federalist鈥檚 Mollie Hemingway 鈥 implying that impeachable offenses should be above and beyond basic criminality.
Notably, Democrats have begun talking about 鈥渂ribery鈥 rather than a 鈥渜uid pro quo鈥 鈥 bribery being 鈥渙ne of only two specific impeachable offenses listed in the Constitution (the other being treason),鈥 as Jeff Greenfield in The Bulwark. Yet Mr. Greenfield also argues that Republicans are incorrect to insist an act must be criminal to be impeachable. He points out that it鈥檚 not hard to come up with hypothetical situations that would not be criminal yet would clearly merit impeachment, just as it鈥檚 possible to envision scenarios where a crime technically was committed that no one would see as necessitating a response.聽
Ultimately, what鈥檚 impeachable is whatever a majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate think is impeachable.
And often, that may have as much to do with the bigger picture as with the incident at hand. The New York Times鈥檚 Ross Douthat that the reason President Bill Clinton may have survived his impeachment process while President Richard Nixon did not was not simply because of different degrees of malfeasance involved 鈥 or even different degrees of partisanship. No, what may have mattered most was that President Nixon鈥檚 second term featured 鈥渁 series of economic shocks鈥 鈥 including an oil crisis, stock market crash, stagflation, and a recession 鈥撀爓hile President Clinton鈥檚 was a 鈥減eak of American power, pride and optimism.鈥
If 鈥渋mpeachable鈥 is in the eye of the beholder, then the strength of today鈥檚 economy may be providing a lens that is more helpful to Mr. Trump than anything else.
Let us know what you鈥檙e thinking at csmpolitics@csmonitor.com.