© David Burton 2017

IMPEACHMENT

     The legal means for removal of a president from office in the United States involves impeachment, followed by trial and conviction. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, James Madison of Virginia successfully argued in favor of the impeachment process, contending that an election every four years did not provide enough of a check on a president who was incapacitated or abusing the power of the office. He contended that “loss of capacity, or corruption . . . might be fatal to the republic” if the president could not be removed until the next election. the Constitutional Convention agreed with Madison on the necessity of impeachment. The general process of removal from office is spelled out in the United State Constitution.

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”         - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 of the United States Constitution

     Impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings and impeachment of the president means that formal charges are brought for crimes alleged to have been committed by the president. The actual trial and subsequent removal from office upon conviction is separate from the act of impeachment itself. Impeachment proceedings have been initiated against several presidents of the United States. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only two presidents to have been successfully impeached by the House of Representatives, and both were later acquitted by the Senate. To date, no U.S. President has been removed from office by impeachment and conviction.

     The House of Representatives has the power to impeach and the Senate has the power to try and convict. The removal of an impeached president is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. The Constitution requires a 2/3 Senate majority for conviction and the conviction is not reviewable by the Supreme Court. During the Senate trial, the Supreme Court Chief Justice is required to preside.

     The term, “High crimes and misdemeanors,” is a somewhat undefined and vague phrase. George Mason of Virginia proposed this phrase as one of the grounds for impeachment and, to the members of the Constitutional Convention, the meaning was clearly understood to mean that the official so charged had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.[1]


REMOVAL FROM OFFICE

     Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution states that, “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.” In other words, if Donald Trump is deemed to be unfit and therefore unable to carry out the duties of the presidency, he can be removed from office without the need to institute an impeachment process. For the good of all, this avenue should be diligently explored as a means to stop America’s hemorrhaging under Donald Trump’s inept and embarrassing leadership.


RESIGNATION

     As Donald Trump was assuming the office of President of the United States of America, I welcomed him into office and wished him well. (Ref. 2) Now, I am urging him to do everyone a favor and resign the presidency so he won’t have to be impeached or removed from office. I am advising him to spare everyone the agony of an impeachment and to spare himself the embarrassment of going through the impeachment or removal process.

     As far as I am concerned, he has turned out to be a greater disappointment as president than he was as a candidate. While I was turned off by his electioneering, I had hoped that he would tone down his rhetoric once he assumed office and he would be more circumspect in his pronouncements and actions. I have been grossly disappointed to the point of calling for his replacement –by impeachment, by removal or, preferably, by his resignation.


CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT

     Some argue that grounds for impeaching Donald Trump exist in the emoluments clause in the Constitution, “which prohibits a politician from accepting any ‘present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.’ “ (Ref. 3) “Emoluments” from foreign governments include ‘any conferral of a benefit or advantage, whether through money, objects, titles, offices, or economically valuable waivers or relaxations of otherwise applicable requirements,’ even including ‘ordinary, fair market value transactions that result in any economic profit or benefit to the federal officeholder.’
     “Many of the Trump Organization’s extensive business dealings with foreign governments, businesses owned by foreign governments, and other foreign leaders violate this ban.” (Ref. 4)

     Still others claim that Trump has violated “the Constitution’s Domestic Emoluments Clause (also known as the Presidential Compensation Clause) {which} provides: ‘The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.’
      - - -
     It’s charged that “President Trump has chosen to continue owning businesses that receive government subsidies and tax breaks in violation of this provision. . .
     “Furthermore, . . . ‘emoluments’ are not limited to monetary payments; they also include economically valuable favorable regulatory actions. President Trump’s control over the vast modern powers of the executive branch means that regulatory action affecting his businesses favorably constitutes an ‘Emolument from the United States.’ For example, President Trump’s ongoing lease of Washington, D.C.’s Old Post Office, in which the Trump International Hotel is located, violates an explicit clause in the General Services Administration lease contract providing: ‘No . . . elected official of the Government of the United States . . . shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom . . . .’ . . . That favorable regulatory treatment provides President Trump a significant financial benefit from the federal government above and beyond his federal salary.” (Ref. 4)

     As previously noted, impeachment is also called for when the president commits “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” If Donald Trump interfered with a possible criminal investigation, as in the case of his interaction with and subsequent firing of FBI Director James Comey, then the grounds for impeachment exist.


UNSUBSTANTIATED CHARGES OF VOTER FRAUD

     Less than a week after taking office, “President Donald Trump called . . . for ‘a major investigation’ into voter fraud, following through with baseless claims he has made since November's election alleging millions of illegal votes during the general election without citing any evidence.
      - - -
     " ‘I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and ... even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!’ Trump wrote in two consecutive tweets.
     “Trump's comments on voter fraud came . . . during a meeting with congressional leaders, where he reiterated an unsubstantiated [Emphasis mine] claim that 3 to 5 million illegal votes cost him the popular vote . . .
     “{the White House press secretary} vigorously defended Trump's statement about illegal voters, though neither Trump nor his surrogates could provide evidence that any substantial illegal voting had occurred or influenced the popular vote.
      - - -
     “Trump faced widespread criticism for his remarks, including from some congressional leaders in his own party, and Democrats have alleged that Republican efforts in the name of fighting voter fraud has the effect of preventing or delaying legal voters who traditionally back Democratic candidates.
      - - -
     “Former Democratic National Committee chair Rep. Debbie-Wasserman Schultz issued a harsh condemnation of Trump's call for an investigation, telling CNN's "New Day" that the tweet's message was ‘deeply disturbing.’
     " ‘He seems to be questioning the legitimacy of his own election, all while, for the last couple of months, touting how legitimate and huge his election was and historic it is. It can't be both,’ she said.
      - - -
     “A number of studies have . . . found no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
     “The Truth About Voter Fraud, a report written by experts at The Brennan Center for Justice, found voter fraud rates were between 0.00004% and 0.0009%.
     “Trump himself -- through his lawyers -- has also argued that there was no evidence of voter fraud in the 2016 election. In a court filing objecting to Green Party candidate Jill Stein's Michigan recount petition, lawyers for the president wrote, ‘All available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake.’ “(Ref. 5) Trump apparently wants to have it both ways – when it’s in his favor, there is no voter fraud and when it’s in his opponents’ favor, then there is voter fraud. The facts don’t seem to matter to Donald Trump.


OFFENDING AMERICA’S FRIENDS AND ALLIES

     For a century or so, the United States has sought to foster a “good neighbor” policy with regard to the rest of the Western hemisphere. Donald Trump immediately recast the image of the United States as the bully of Western hemisphere by telling a sovereign and friendly neighbor, Mexico, that he, Donald Trump, would force that nation to pay between $12 billion and $15 billion to the United States so he could build a fence to keep illegal immigrants and drug smugglers out of our country. Some good neighbor! Who gives Donald Trump the authority to tell another sovereign nation what do with their money? I certainly don’t see this power granted to the president in our constitution. I can’t see any international court granting an American president this authority. In one act of stupid arrogance, Donald Trump has endangered a century’s efforts on the part of Democratic and Republican administrations to stretch out a hand of friendship to the other nations in our hemisphere.

     On top of offending the sovereign nation of Mexico, it turns out that the issue of illegal border crossings from Mexico is no longer the problem that it once was and the number of illegal crossings into the U.S. from Mexico has been declining since long before Trump made it an election campaign promise. The same is true for the number of undocumented aliens residing in the U.S.

     “The number of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. fell to its lowest level since the end of the Great Recession, a decline punctuated in part by a steady drop in the number of Mexicans without legal status, a new study shows. [Emphasis mine]
     “An analysis of U.S. census data by Pew Research Center, published {in April 2017), found there were . . . roughly 3 percent fewer {undocumented aliens} than . . . in 2009.&nbp;. . . During that same six-year period, the number of Mexicans in the country illegally plunged to 5.6 million from 6.4 million.
     “ ‘The numbers are not going up, and in fact, the numbers for Mexicans have been going down for almost a decade now,’ . . . ‘And that is counter to a lot of the rhetoric you hear.’
       - - -
     “Such findings, however, are unlikely to push the Trump administration away from its plans to ramp up immigration enforcement along the U.S. border with Mexico — at a cost of tens of billions of dollars. In addition to aggressively deporting illegal immigrants, the new president and his cabinet want to hire 5,000 new Border Patrol agents and construct a barrier along the U.S.’ southern border.
       - - -
     “. . . a demographer and senior visiting fellow with the non-partisan Center for Migration Studies, {said} that fewer than half of all undocumented immigrants entering the U.S. now arrive by crossing a border illegally. A recent study . . . found that two-thirds of all people who joined the undocumented population in the country in 2014 did so by entering with a legal temporary visa.” [Emphasis mine] (Ref. 6). So, Trump’s much ballyhooed and very costly wall to keep out “the flood of illegal Mexican wetbacks” is not so essential after all. He would have known this if he had bothered to take the time to find out the real facts instead of simply flying by the seat of his pants – an all-too-common trait of Donald Trump that further renders him unfit to lead this nation.

     Mexico is not the only friend of America that Trump has offended. When his false accusation that former President Barack Obama had wiretapped him during the 2016 presidential election was denied by heads of the FBI and NSA, Trump then – again falsely - accused Britain of having done the dirty deed. He shocked many of the closest U.S. allies with comments that NATO was no longer relevant. Trump's intention to abrogate or renegotiate NAFTA is of major importance to our northern neighbor, Canada, which purchases more goods and services from the United States than from all the combined countries of the European Union. In Europe, intelligence services are growing increasingly worried that Donald Trump’s unpredictability and impulsive tweeting could harm intelligence-sharing agreements with the United States. Israeli intelligence agents are reportedly unsure if they can safely share information with the White House. Trump’s pronouncements about the Korean Peninsula have deeply concerned the people and the government of South Korea because his statements make no sense to the South Koreans. According to The New York Times and prior to his election, top Japanese officials visiting Washington, D.C., expressed "anxieties" about Trump's remarks on foreign policy. The Japanese were particularly alarmed because Trump, as a real estate developer, had been bashing Japan for decades. Mr. Trump's criticisms had a distinctly 1980s flavor, when Japanese cars were flooding American markets and Japanese businesses were buying premier American properties like Rockefeller Center in New York.

     Unfortunately, since assuming office, Donald Trump has proven to be an equal-opportunity offender of a number of America’s friends and allies. His first major foreign policy address alarmed many of America’s allies, who viewed his repeated use of the phrase "America first" as a threat to retreat from the world. His words and actions as president have endeared him to few, if any, of America’s closest friends. His message that our friends are nothing but ungrateful freeloaders has created anger. “Two weeks into the Trump presidency, the British parliament . . . barred {Trump} from addressing the House of Commons; a leading German newspaper . . . called on all freedom-loving peoples in Europe and Asia to mobilize against the United States; a senior cabinet minister in the Australian government has coined the phrase normal Trump tantrum; Israeli intelligence agents are (reportedly) unsure if they can safely share information with the White House; . . . members of the global economic elite have started referring to China as ‘the leader of the free world’ . . .” (Ref. 7)


PROPOSING RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

     Trumps’ rush to effectively ban Muslims from entering the United Sates one week after assuming office was a rash, foolish and (so far) illegal action. His executive order was almost immediately rejected when a federal court temporarily halted parts of Trump’s sweeping executive order that aimed to impose a de facto ban on travelers coming from several Muslim-majority countries. The president’s action was intemperate and aimed at one group – Muslims. It left several legal visitors to the United states temporarily stranded in mid-travel. The president’s action was akin to putting out a sign saying “No Muslims Allowed”, recalling earlier such signs that read “Irish need not apply” or “No blacks allowed” or the implicit notice at various country clubs, golf courses, etc. that meant “Jews not accepted.” The president’s action was discrimination based upon religion - pure and simple. President Donald Trump’s precipitous action makes a mockery of the sonnet by Emma Lazarus at the Statue of Liberty that reads,

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

     In spite of President Trump’s rush to ban Muslims from entering the United States because of his proclaimed fear that there will be more Islamic terrorist attacks against Americans, the real facts are:

• Terrorist attacks and attempted attacks in the United States have become less frequent since the 1970s — though September 11 was a huge exception.
• The great majority of terrorists involved in the 9/11attacks came from Saudi Arabia, including its organizer, Osama bin Ladin. Yet Trump’s proposed ban did not include Saudi Arabia.
• Since the Oklahoma City bombing, a greater portion of terrorist attacks have been carried out by individuals rather than by groups of Islamic terrorists.
• North America suffers far, far fewer terrorist attacks than most other regions around the world.
• The odds of an American dying in a terrorist attack are still far, far lower than dying from just about anything else – about 1 in 20,000,000, both domestic and overseas.
• Overwhelmingly, those who have committed terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe aren’t Muslim.
• Since the 9/11 attacks, Muslim-linked terrorism has claimed the lives of 37 Americans while, over the same time period, more than 190,000 Americans were murdered.
• In spite of the claim by President Trump in his attempted ban on travel from 7 Muslim-majority countries that, “Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001,” the truth is, that since the 9/11 attacks, zero fatal attacks were carried out by immigrants from the 7 Muslim-majority countries targeted by the President, and only 2 non-fatal attacks were carried out by individuals with ties to these 7 countries over this period of time.[8 and 9]