THE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT

                 The impeachment of a president

Like most Americans, I looked forward with great anticipation to reading of the findings of the “Mueller Report,” a two-year investigation into alleged Russian involvement and cooperation with the Trump Campaign organization during the 2016 Presidential election. Further, the inquiry was looking into alleged incidents of obstruction of Justice, by the President of the United states, in covering up facts in the case.

The seminal findings of the probe, as explained by the U.S. Attorney General in a televised press conference, were that the report had neither found the president guilty of doing anything wrong, nor had they exonerated him from all wrongdoing.  After listening to the four-page summary of the report, delivered by the Attorney General, my reactions, like most people was “Huh? Is that all there is?” A press conference a few weeks later by Mr. Mueller contradicted the Attorney General. Mr. Mueller further said that if they could have exonerated the President of all wrong doing, they would have so stated in the report. He also restated that the Dept. of Justice policy, that a sitting president could not be indicted while in office, precluded him from making a decision as to whether or not the President was guilty of Obstruction of Collaboration with the Russians, should be left for a determination by a body outside of the present American Justice System. The reference understood by most scholars to mean tossing the ball for the House of Representatives to decide on whether or not to bring Impeachment Proceedings against President Trump.

After pondering all of these differing interpretations, I book-marked the government website that features the report, deciding to read the 400-page compendium at a later date.( https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf)  The verbal brickbats, lobbed back and forth by the differing factions, were both lively and angrily presented daily on the television news programs. Finally, my own curiosity, piqued by the urging of an old college buddy, who advised all of his former students to read the whole report and make up their own minds, I did.

The first thing that you notice in the Mueller Report, are all of the “redactions.” These are sections of the report that are blacked out as being found either “harmful to existing and ongoing investigations” or “grand jury testimony.” These redactions ate up a lot of the report. One has to wonder at what lies therein? How damaging is the information to anyone mentioned in the report? And despite protestation to the contrary by Fox News, all of the Grand Jury material was ordered released by the Courts during two previous impeachment proceedings, that of Presidents Clinton and Nixon. 

Each of the report’s allegations is footnoted with source material, in a precise and thorough manner. And my own thoughts, after reading this ambiguous, fact-based compendium? After several hours of reading, I arrived at the following conclusions. 

ThoughI am not a lawyer, and I do not fully understand the obligations of the level of proof necessary for an indictment, as a layman and an ordinary citizen, based on the evidence offered, I would adjudge the Trump organization to be complicit of wholesale collaboration with several elements of the Russian Government, during the 2016 election. Whether or not this is indeed a crime, or the level of proof required is sufficient to say that it is, is not known to me. 

 Further, based on the evidence presented in the report, I concluded that the President has willfully committed several acts of obstruction of Justice during the Mueller investigation. Again, I am untutored as to the level of intent and proof necessary to declare it a crime of obstruction. To the untrained eye though,” if it walks, talks and acts like a duck, then it is probably a duck.”

The framers of our Constitution have, in my opinion wisely precluded indicting a sitting president, for any alleged crimes committed during his tenure. They thought that the incessant weight, of constant nuisance suits directed at the Chief Executive, would make it impossible for him to govern.  

They did not however wish to give any president a “get out of jail free card.” But rather, provided that if a majority of the House of Representative’s members decided in open session that high crimes and misdemeanors had been committed, by a sitting president, the remedy is a formal impeachment process. Any notion of impeachment should not be idly entertained except upon proper investigation and fact finding by the House of Representatives. 

If there is indeed prima facie evidence that implicates a sitting president, in the opinion of a majority of sitting members, with actions that can be adjudged to be criminal in nature, the House of Representatives has no option therefore, but to initiate a bill of impeachment for what is alleged are high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the President. Political arguments, as to whether or not this impeachment would enhance the president’s chances for reelection next year, are specious. Either the man, in a majority of the member’s opinion, is guilty as charged, or he isn’t. Deferring the process, for political reasons is not only hypocrisy, but amounts substantively to be aiding and abetting someone in the commission of a crime, albeit after the fact.

 If the majority of the members of the United States Senate, in its wisdom in carrying out its constitutional role, exonerates the president, then so be it. That is our democratic system, as laid out by our founding fathers. No man is above the law. Nor is he/she guilty until proven so in a prescribed court of law and found guilty by a jury of his/her peers. This whole situation isn’t about politics, but the rule of law.

                                              -30-

                                          (957 words)

                                 Joseph Xavier Martin