By Andrew C. McCarthy
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
‘Collusion is not a crime.”
“Are you kidding? It could be a campaign-finance-law
violation. After all, opposition research is a ‘thing of value.’ There could be
a conspiracy to defraud the United States by impeding the legitimate functions
of the Federal Election Commission. Plus, Trump said his campaign had nothing
to do with Russia. He lied to the public.”
“Lying to the public is not a crime.”
This is the sort of banter that went on all day Tuesday,
following revelation of the devastating e-mail exchange between Donald Trump
Jr. and Rob Goldstone. Plainly, both sides of the political aisle are badly
misinformed about the Constitution’s take on executive misconduct. When the
president’s behavior is at issue, it is the Constitution, not the criminal law,
that is paramount.
On the Right and in Republican circles, there are staunch
Trump supporters, as well as reluctant ones (including moi) who voted for Trump reasoning that the only practical
alternative was Hillary (not an alternative). The former are all in, seemingly
no matter what Trump does; the latter support him when he pushes conservative
policies but are not invested in him, politically or personally. Trump-Russia
brings the divide into sharp relief.
The tepid-on-Trump camp is aghast at revelations of the
extent and nature of the Trump clan’s ties to a murderous anti-American regime
— and, speaking only for myself, humbled by analysts who were more troubled by
the circumstantial evidence in the absence of smoking guns. Trump fans, to the
contrary, are doing the full Clinton: doubling down on the absurd insistence
that Trump-Russia is a big ol’ “nothingburger.”
“Look at the U.S. penal code,” they scoff, defying
outraged Americans to identify a single criminal-law violation that has been
established. There is no crime, they maintain, in colluding with the Russian
government to collect and broadcast damaging information about an opposition
American candidate.
On the Left, meanwhile, are the legal beagles. They are
busily squirreling through the law books and straining their creative brains to
come up with an offense — some novel prosecution theory under which the
Trump-Russia facts can be pigeonholed into a campaign-law violation, a
computer-fraud crime, or maybe even misprision of a felony (i.e., a failure to
report one).
One side is mulishly determined not to see outrageous
misconduct. The other side is inadvertently trivializing it.
But the question is not whether collusion is a crime. It
is whether collusion is a high crime or
misdemeanor.
When I wrote Faithless
Execution, my 2014 book about impeachment, I well understood that there was
no prospect of impeaching President Obama. Indeed, I argued in the book that it
would be not merely foolish but counterproductive to commence impeachment
proceedings against a president as to whom there was no political prospect of
removal from office. A failed impeachment effort would be like a license to
mutilate. It would tell the president who escaped unscathed that he was
invulnerable — it would actually encourage
more misconduct.
But there was still, I believed, a need for such a book.
The wayward public debate after disclosure of the Trump Jr. e-mails proves the
point. Not enough of us who are informing the public are informed ourselves
about how our constitutional system is supposed to work.
Nothing caused the Framers greater anxiety than the new
office they were creating, the presidency of the United States. They were
rightly convinced of the need in a dangerous world for an energetic executive
able to act swiftly and decisively in times of crisis. But, being close
students of human nature, they were equally worried that the enormous powers
attendant to the office could be abused, that they could fall into the hands of
an unfit incumbent, or that they could come under the influence of foreign powers.
They thus gave Congress a dispositive check: the power of
impeachment and removal. Impeachment, not criminal prosecution, is our
Constitution’s response to egregious executive malfeasance.
Thus, the critical part: The standard for impeachment, the
commission of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” is not concerned with criminal
offenses found in the penal statute books and suitable for courtroom
prosecution. It relates instead to the president’s high fiduciary duty to the
American people and allegiance to our system of government.
Alexander Hamilton put it best in Federalist No. 65. Impeachable offenses are those
Which proceed from the misconduct
of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public
trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to
injuries done immediately to the society itself.
The bickering over collusion “crimes” misses the point.
If an unfit person holds the presidency, the danger to our society is that he
will abuse the power that he wields. The imperative is to remove him from
office. Whether, in addition to that,
his misconduct also happens to violate penal statutes and be ripe for criminal
prosecution is a side issue. It is a subordinate legal question, whereas fitness for the presidency is a core political issue. That is why it is
rightly observed that impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one.
We are a good distance from being able to assess whether
President Trump should be impeached. It is specious, though, to suggest that
this is not a question worthy of exploration, or that its answer hinges on
whether collusion with Russia amounts to a criminal-law violation.
Our aspiration for presidential fitness is something more
than “nothing he has done is indictable.” Abuses of trust go to the core of
self-determining, republican governance. It is fatuous to fret over whether
they also amount to, say, campaign-finance infractions — even “major” offenses
in that category, such as the 2008
Obama campaign’s acceptance of nearly $2 million in illegal contributions,
are so trivial in the greater scheme of things that they are commonly settled
by the payment of an administrative fine.
All politicians practice a certain economy with the truth,
but flat-out lying to the American people on a significant matter is a major
abuse of trust. And forfending collusion with a foreign sovereign was an
imperative for the Framers.
That is why, for example, the Constitution requires that
the president be a “natural born citizen.” The presidency is the only federal
office for which naturalized citizens are not qualified. That is not because we
think them any less fit for the obligations of citizenship; it is because the
Framers believed the presidency and its commander-in-chief powers had to be
fortified against the potential of foreign intrigue.
The principal duty of the president is to safeguard the
nation against foreign threats to our security and system of government. If a
president instead has put them at greater risk, if he has conducted himself in
such a way as to raise the specter of blackmail by a foreign power, it is
always appropriate to question his fitness for the nation’s highest office.
We are closer to the beginning than to the end of the Trump-Russia
drama. The Framers wisely made removal from office hard to do, which is why
impeachment is so very rare. Even though it takes only one “high crime and
misdemeanor” to warrant impeachment, you could have a hundred of them and a
president still would not be removed unless there was a strong political
consensus for doing so.
The requirement of a two-thirds supermajority Senate vote
in impeachment cases ensures this. No president will be removed from office
absent misconduct sufficiently grave that support for impeachment cuts across
our deep partisan and ideological divides. Remember: It is a political remedy,
not a legal one. It is an easy thing to condemn President Trump’s canoodling
with Putin’s regime. It will be more difficult to weigh it against other
political dalliances with anti-American regimes that we have tolerated. There
was no move to impeach President Obama over the Iran deal and all the chicanery
attendant to it. Democrats had no qualms about nominating Hillary Clinton
despite the Clinton Foundation’s shameful acceptance of millions in foreign
funding and her consequent green-lighting, as secretary of state, of Russia’s
acquisition of major American uranium reserves.
The investigation of Trump’s relationship with Russia
will continue. We need to get to the bottom of exactly what it was, exactly
what was wrong about it, and how that impropriety affects his ability credibly
to carry out his duties — informed by precedents we seem to have established
for executive relations with foreign sovereigns.
The conclusions to be drawn about the president, however,
will have little or nothing to do with whether prosecutable crimes have been
committed. The questions are those that arise from “the misconduct of public
men”: abuse of trust and fitness for office.
No comments:
Post a Comment