Published on Portside (https://portside.org/)
The Watergate
Blueprint for Impeaching Donald Trump
Elizabeth
Holtzman
November
15, 2018
The
Intercept
WHEN DONALD
TRUMP’S presidential
election victory was announced in the early morning hours of November 9, 2016,
like many Americans, I rubbed my eyes in disbelief and dismay. Two questions
raced through my mind:
What had become of
America that a man so unfit, so small-minded, so mean-spirited could be
elected? A man whose ethnic and racial bigotry had set the stage for his
presidential run when he called Mexicans rapists and made racist birther
attacks on President Barack Obama. Whose vulgarity and misogyny were laid bare
in the Access Hollywood tape when he bragged about forcibly grabbing women by
their genitals. Whose performance at presidential debates showed him not only
flagrantly ill-informed, but manifestly unwilling to get informed.
My second question
was how much harm this man would do to America as its 45th president.
I have my answer
now to the latter, less than two years after the election. President Trump has
damaged American democracy far more than I would have guessed. He has
relentlessly attacked the administration of justice, in particular the
investigation into a possible conspiracy with Russia regarding the 2016
presidential election, putting himself above the rule of law; he has failed to
separate his personal business from the country’s, flouting the Constitution’s
requirements; he has violated the constitutional rights of the people in
separating children from parents at the Southwest border without due process of
law; and he has refused to acknowledge Russia’s central role in interfering in
our 2016 elections and to publicly lead a full-scale effort to protect against
further interference. To cover up these misdeeds, moreover, he has flagrantly
lied and assailed the press as an enemy of the people. These are “great and
dangerous offenses” that the framers of our Constitution wanted to counteract
and thwart. They provided a powerful remedy. Impeachment.
Many tremble at
the word, fearing how Trump’s supporters will react to an impeachment inquiry,
worrying that it will only further polarize an already deeply divided nation or
that there will not be enough votes in the Republican-controlled Senate to
convict him even if the newly empowered Democratic majority in the House of
Representatives votes to impeach. Just calling for an inquiry will be viewed as
a Democratic Party attack on the head of another party, a kind of coup d’état.
It’s easy to find reasons to be anxious.
I’m not afraid. As
a junior congresswoman, the youngest ever elected at that time, I served on the
House Judiciary Committee that voted to impeach President Richard Nixon for the
high crimes and misdemeanors he committed in connection with the Watergate
cover-up and other matters. Thorough, fair, and above all bipartisan, the
committee acted on solid evidence presented in televised hearings that riveted
the nation, handing us the blueprint for how impeachment can be successfully
pursued today. In our 225 years of constitutional democracy, the Nixon
impeachment process has proven to be the only presidential effort that worked.
Though Nixon resigned — the only president ever to do so — two weeks after the
committee’s impeachment vote, he did so to avoid the certainty of being
impeached and removed from office. We became a better nation for having held
the president accountable.
All of which
raises two further questions: Should we be considering the impeachment of
President Donald J. Trump? Will we again become a better nation by pursuing
that option? To answer, we need to set aside Trump’s unremitting attacks on the
environment, on our close allies, on almost every program that Obama put into
effect, including the Affordable Care Act, and any disagreements we have over
policy, as well as any personal animus, and ascertain simply whether he has
engaged in the kind of egregious conduct that would meet the constitutional standards
for impeachment and removal from office.
This means we have
to focus sharply on his potentially impeachable offenses. In so doing, we will
find it useful to compare them, when possible, to similar offenses by Nixon
found to be impeachable by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974. Here is a
list of some of Trump’s potentially impeachable offenses developed as of this
writing:
A possible
interference with or obstruction of the administration of justice and an abuse
of power. On
May 9, 2017, Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, who was investigating both
his national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and Russia’s ties to the Trump
campaign in connection with influencing the 2016 presidential election. Two
days later, Trump admitted to NBC’s Lester Holt that Comey’s firing had to do
with “the Russia thing” — in other words, Trump acknowledged that he was trying
to shut down the FBI investigation into his possible conspiracy with Russia.
(Flynn has since pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.)
The Comey firing
uncannily echoes Nixon’s firing of the special Watergate prosecutor for seeking
highly damaging information about the president — a brazen defiance of the rule
of law that triggered the start of impeachment proceedings against Nixon.Former
FBI Director James Comey arrives to testify about President Donald Trump before
a Senate Select Intelligence Committee hearing on June 8, 2017.
A second possible
interference with or obstruction of the administration of justice and an abuse
of power. Trump
has persistently and publicly attacked those heading the Russia investigation,
including special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein, and has repeatedly condemned Attorney General Jeff Sessions for
recusing himself, suggesting that he wants to fire any and all of them in order
to get control of the Russia investigation. (He actually did give an order to
fire Mueller.) The president’s firing of Sessions and replacement of him with
Matthew Whitaker, an avowed critic of the investigation who has not recused
himself from overseeing it, is the most recent — and possibly the most
dangerous — assault on the investigation.
A failure to take
care that the laws are faithfully executed, as required by the
Constitution. To
try to deflect public concern about his possible role in conspiring with
Russia about the 2016 election and to undermine the legitimacy of the
investigation into that matter, Trump has persistently attacked the Russia
investigation as a witch hunt and a hoax, even though 34 people either pleaded
guilty or were indicted as a result of that investigation. The indictments
included Russian agents who allegedly interfered with the 2016 election by
manipulating social media, hacking into computers of the Democratic National
Committee, targeting election machinery in various states, and using other
methods.
Similar behavior
by Nixon became one of the grounds of the first article of impeachment against
him. As part of the Watergate cover-up, Nixon was charged with making “false or
misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the
United States.” This included Nixon’s claim that White House investigations had
cleared everyone of any involvement with the break-in, for example, and that
his aide H. R. Haldeman, who had perjured himself before the Senate Watergate
Committee, had testified accurately.
A second failure
to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, as required by the
Constitution. Trump
has failed to undertake his constitutionally mandated leadership role to
protect our elections from further interference by the Russian government,
including his continued refusal to acknowledge unequivocally Russia’s
interference in 2016, despite the paramount importance of ensuring honest
elections in our democracy. For example, cyber countermeasures were apparently
undertaken starting in the summer of 2018, but without the president’s
involvement. His continued hands-off approach has left too many Americans
doubting the existence of Russian interference and failing to insist on robust
government protective measures. In the absence of that protection, the Russians
may renew the cyberattacks and other interference previously used against us.
An abuse of
power. He
has used the power of his office to remove or threaten to remove the security
clearances of people who criticized him or who he believed were associated with
the Russia investigation or could be possible witnesses against him. A
historical equivalent is Nixon’s creation of an “Enemies List” of anti-Vietnam
War activists, whom he directed to be audited by the Internal Revenue Service
in retaliation for their political positions — actions that formed part of an
article of impeachment.
A second abuse of
power. He
approved a lawless, ethnically based, and infinitely cruel policy of separating
children from parents at the Southwest border, depriving both children and
parents of their constitutional rights and subjecting them to horrific mental
anguish that may result in long-term psychological damage, a policy that the
courts struck down.
An assault on our
democratic values. He has systematically lied to the American people
about government policies and actions, crippling their ability to make sound
judgments about the direction of their government.
A violation of a
specific constitutional prohibition. He has refused to separate himself
from his business interests, which have received things of value from foreign
and U.S. governments, ranging from Chinese trademarks to payments for the use
of his Washington hotel, suggesting that the presidency is open for business
and that his personal business interests may influence his governmental
decisions — all apparent violations of the emoluments clauses of the
Constitution and possibly the ban on bribery as well. Though the House
Judiciary Committee voted against an article of impeachment involving Nixon’s
receipt of emoluments from the federal government, notably in the form of
improvements to his California and Florida properties, Trump’s business
interests are far greater than Nixon’s, and Trump could have tried to cure the
problem of foreign emoluments by getting congressional approval, which he has
steadfastly refused to do.
An effort to
undermine a core democratic institution. He has repeatedly
attacked the media as the enemy of the people (a term used in the Stalinist
purges against untold thousands of innocent people ultimately killed by the
Soviet regime), encouraging Americans to disregard what they see and hear in
the press as “fake news.” Seriously undermining the free press hampers the
public’s right to know, which in itself hurts a democracy.
Nixon also
attacked the press. He illegally ordered the wiretapping of journalists and
placed a number of them on his Enemies List, targeting them for harassing IRS audits.
Both actions formed a basis for Nixon’s impeachment.
DONALD TRUMP IS a clear and
present danger to our democracy. Whether it is his effort to impede and
obstruct the investigations into Russian interference, his declining to protect
our election system from Russian manipulation, his open hand to payments his
businesses receive from foreign governments and domestically, or his assault on
the rights of thousands of children at the border, the president’s misdeeds
cast a wide net. They are ongoing, with no end in sight. And he continues to
spin a web of incessant and brazen falsehoods, deceptions, and lies to disguise
and conceal the misdeeds.
In 1973, the
country also faced a president run amok. Richard Nixon, whose campaign minions
broke into the Watergate complex, orchestrated a vast, multipronged effort to
stymie investigations into the burglary. Nixon engaged in other nefarious
activities and abuses of power: He violated the rights of Americans though
illegal wiretaps of journalists, an illegal break-in into a psychiatrist’s
office for damaging information, an order for IRS audits of political opponents
— the Enemies List — to name a few.
Nixon’s cover-up
was effective: It got him re-elected with one of the largest electoral margins
in American history. Then, it began to unravel. Evidence harmful to him came to
light, and, in a grandiose move of maximum presidential authority, he ordered
the special prosecutor investigating him to be fired. That’s where the American
people drew the line. They demanded that Congress take action, and it did. It
started an inquiry, which resulted in a bipartisan vote for articles of
impeachment, forcing Nixon to resign.
It was in response
to obstruction that the articles of impeachment against Nixon were adopted.
Their message? Presidents cannot block, tamper with, and destroy the machinery
of justice that is aimed at them. If they do, it is at their peril. They face
impeachment, removal from office, even imprisonment. But if we allow
presidents to block, tamper with, and destroy the machinery of justice that is
aimed at them, we do so at our peril. The rule of law will go
up in smoke. We will enshrine two standards of justice, one for the powerful
and one for everyone else. We will find ourselves on the road to tyranny.
It is a road that
we’re dangerously close to traveling today.
Original
reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. Join The
Intercept Newsletter
Nixon worked
mightily to stop the institutions of justice from closing in on him and his
associates. So has Trump. Not every aspect of Nixon’s impeachable offenses is
replicated in Trump’s behavior. Still, there are astonishing and troublesome
parallels, particularly in the Russia investigation, including Trump’s firing
the FBI director (Nixon had the special Watergate prosecutor fired); Trump’s
demanding that the recused attorney general resign and replacing him with an
acting attorney general who is outspokenly hostile to the investigation and who
has suggested ways of terminating it by such means as defunding it (Nixon tried
to fire the special Watergate prosecutor, a more direct way of ending the
investigation into himself); dangling pardon possibilities to those under
investigation (Nixon did the same); making relentless and false attacks on the
investigation and those conducting it (Nixon called for an end to the
investigations and engaged in other attacks); and deceiving the public and
Congress constantly and systematically (Nixon did that, too).
Watergate started
with burglars who used burglars’ tools to break into the Democratic National
Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel complex in Washington, D.C. They
were interfering in the 1972 presidential election. The investigation of Donald
Trump started with the Russians’ using cyber tools to break into the DNC
computer servers and interfere in the 2016 presidential election. We don’t know
what the Watergate burglars were looking for. We don’t know what the Russians’
real objective was, or even the full impact of their interference. It may even
have vaulted Donald Trump into the White House.
But we do know
that on July 27, 2016, Trump publicly called for Russian help in winning the
election — and later repeatedly applauded WikiLeaks’ release of illegally
hacked Clinton campaign emails. And we know that Russia gave him help —
targeting, for example, Hillary Clinton’s personal office for the first time
the day after Trump’s request and targeting 76 of her staffers as well.
Was the help
coordinated with the Trump campaign or just coincidental? If coordinated, then
Trump has committed a high crime and misdemeanor of the gravest kind — working
with a foreign power in violation of our campaign finance and other laws to get
elected. It is imperative for Congress to ascertain the facts, and not leave
us to speculate or with a secretly beholden president.
Trump’s effort to
block the investigation into his possible collusion with the Russians over the
2016 election on the face of it warrants an impeachment inquiry. It may well
be that a full examination of his behavior will exonerate him, but, given the
record of his tweets and his public statements, not to mention his firing of
James Comey, it is more likely that his actions have been prompted by the
impermissible and impeachable objective of stopping the investigations before
they find him out.
Trump’s misconduct
does not stop with his repeated attempts to impede the Russia investigations.
He has steadfastly refused to accept that Russia seriously interfered in our
2016 elections and to take a public role in developing and announcing plans to
protect against further Russian attacks, failing to fulfill his central obligation
as president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. This failure,
too, is related to his effort to impede the Russia investigation. If the
American people, including his “base,” fully understood the seriousness and
scope of the Russian attacks, they would demand effective measures from the
president to stop them, but they also might question why Trump is calling the
investigation a hoax when the Russians really attacked us, as our intelligence
agencies, the Justice Department, grand juries, and private social media companies
have found.
The president has
also defied and flouted the Constitution’s ban on emoluments on a very large
scale, creating the appearance, if not the reality, of influence-peddling at
the highest level of our government. This is another assault on our democracy.
Finally, Trump’s
heartless separation of thousands of children from parents on the Southwest
border is an action that violates our Constitution’s deepest promises of due
process and equal protection. The willingness to assault the Constitution by harming
so many threatens all of us.
Together, Trump’s
actions are indicative of a president who has established a different standard
of justice for himself — exactly the kind that we declared impermissible in
Nixon’s articles of impeachment. He has done so at the expense of democracy.
And he’s done so at his own peril.
There is a remedy
— and I participated in it and lived through it and saw it work. The solution
is what Congress, the courts, and the press used in dealing with Nixon in
Watergate. It means imposing accountability and holding the president to the
rule of law, as we did then.
In Watergate,
there was a criminal investigation and there were congressional inquiries,
including an impeachment process. All were thorough and fair; all won the
respect of the public. And together they re-established the public’s faith in
the viability of our democracy and the Constitution.
No one, not even a
president, is above the law. That is the lesson of Watergate, and it must
continue to be the lesson today.
Today we have the
advantage of knowing what to do, of having the model for action — full-throated
congressional inquiries, a bipartisan impeachment inquiry, and an investigation
by Robert Mueller that proceeds without interference until it is properly
concluded. These are simple, realizable objectives.
The American
people can force action on this agenda as they did in response to presidential
misconduct in Watergate. We have the power. We are still a democracy.
This article is
adapted from the book “The Case for Impeaching Trump” by Elizabeth
Holtzman.
Elizabeth Holtzman
is a former four-term Democratic congresswoman from New York. She served on the
House Judiciary Committee that investigated the role of President Richard M.
Nixon in the Watergate scandal and voted to impeach him. Her accomplishments in
Congress include bringing Nazi war criminals in the U.S. to justice, creating
the bipartisan caucus of congresswomen, and co-authoring the first special
prosecutor legislation and the 1980 Refugee Act. She was later elected Brooklyn
district attorney and comptroller of New York City, the first woman to hold
either office. Holtzman is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Radcliffe
College and practices law in New York.
She is a frequent speaker about
political affairs on MSNBC and CNN and other major news networks, a
well-published author in the New York Times and other media outlets, and the
author of “The Impeachment of George W. Bush,” “Who Said it Would be Easy?” and
“Cheating Justice.”
Donations can be sent
to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD
21218. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski2001 [at] comcast.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their
lives." Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment