Donald trump's decision to fire James Comey fueled a national uproar, predictably especially among members of Congress. While apologists for the administration suggested that terminating his appointment had been favored by everyone on both sides of the aisle, others remarked that this would have been O.K. had it been done immediately following Mr. Trump's inauguration, but that at this juncture the discussion turned to the motive behind the decision. In an interview shortly after Mr. Comey was terminated Mr. Trump confirmed that the FBI investigation into collusion between his campaign staff and Russian operatives very much influenced his decision. Threats tweeted subsequently, suggesting that the president employed some kind of recording device in the oval office, conjured up images of President Nixon's Watergate scandal. The optics did not improve when Mr. Trump met with Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and ambassador Sergei Kislyak in the Oval Office the day after the firing.
Reactions to what turned out to be a very eventful week were predictable. Republicans stayed on the fence, be it uncomfortably. Democrats and activists throughout the country cried foul. The charges heard throughout concentrated on "obstruction of Justice" linked to suggestions that impeachment proceedings might be in order, and to the fear that the administration precipitated sliding down the slippery slope towards autocratic governance.
Anti-Trump forces have regularly charged that the administration displays a tendency to be autocratic. Coming from the business world, the president appears to be more comfortable making independent, rash decisions, without considering the consequences to democratic norms. His use of executive orders, he signed 32 in 100 days, rather than going the legislative route, appears to support that notion. His constant battle with the media, identifying coverage unflattering to him as "fake news," demonizing Muslims and illegal immigrants, derogatory comments about judicial decisions and "so-called judges," and arbitrary, impulsive, decisions, all fuelled the fear that we may be on the cusp of a dictatorial take-over.
The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences states that dictatorship refers to the "unrestricted domination of the state by an individual, a clique, or a small group." Its supporting article states that all forms of dictatorship share the following characteristics: "1. Exclusivity and arbitrariness in the exercise of power; 2. Abolition or loosening of the judicial bonds of political power; 3. Elimination or substantial restriction of civil liberties; 4. The predominantly aggressive, impulsive, form of decision making; and 5. Employment of despotic methods of political and social control." Stephen Walt, in the November 23, 2016 issue of "Foreign Policy," in an article titled: "10 Ways to tell if your president is a dictator," adds a few other features to the mix. These include: "Systematic efforts to intimidate the media, using state power to reward corporate backers and punish opponents, fear mongering, and demonizing the opposition." Benjamin Friedman, in "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth," argues that growth, "more often than not, fosters greater opportunity, tolerance of diversity and dedication to democracy." When living standards stagnate or decline most societies retrogress. When we start blaming the rest of the world for loss of our prestige "we'd be ripe for a demagogue who feeds those insecurities with xenophobic sloganeering." For a totalitarian takeover to take root, ordinary people would have to let it happen.
While we consider the implications of the elements involved in this discussion, we should turn to a demand we are beginning to hear with greater frequency: "impeachment." During the summer of 1973, as a relatively recent immigrant to this country, I was engrossed in the televised hearings into the Watergate burglary, which ultimately led to President Nixon's resignation. The first article of impeachment Nixon was charged with was "obstruction of justice." Subsequent to Director Comey's dismissal this concept resurfaced. Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe, in a Washington Post op-ed, called for an impeachment investigation into Donald Trump for obstruction of justice. According to professor Tribe "the firing of FBI Director James Comey was an obvious effort to interfere with a probe involving national security." Obstruction involves any interference with a judicial or congressional proceeding, or attempt to do so. The real question is whether Trump intended to impede the FBI's investigation. Key words in a relevant charge will be "corrupt intent."
Article II of our Constitution stipulates that "the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment charges for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Historically, and cynically, President Gerald Ford observed that "impeachable offenses are whatever Congress says they are." An impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representative, which is currently controlled by the Republican Party, and unlikely to start the process.
The inquiry has a long way to go before any of this becomes relevant. It helps to remember that only twice in our history has the House impeached a president, Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. In neither case did the Senate convict. Richard Nixon resigned before the articles of impeachment were voted on by the full House.
So, sit back and let events unfold. They most likely will.
No comments:
Post a Comment