The Impeachment of Reason

 

Impeachment has become a household word, nowadays. We hear and read that the Legislative branch (yes, the very same one that was created as part of the “checks and balances”) of the U.S. government is planning to impeach former President, Donald J. Trump. We witness many discussions and debates, by various analysts, mostly media people and unfortunately, even some U.S. politicians who are clueless about their own U.S. Constitution, in general and on the Articles of Impeachment, in particular.

Since I am an American, some turn to me to ask my view on this issue, seeking some clarification.

I always suggest that we start by defining terms.

“Impeachment” according to the Cambridge Dictionary is “to make a formal statement saying that a public official is guilty of a serious offence in connection with their job, especially in the US:” This teaches us that impeachment can only apply to a person who holds an official public office.

Next, let us see what the U.S Constitution states regarding impeachment. A basic Google search has produced, among others, an article by the NYTimes. In it, the writer states in plain everyday language that: “The Constitution permits Congress to remove presidents before their term is up if enough lawmakers vote to say that they committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” I have no reason to doubt the NYTimes on the accuracy of this statement.

What we learn from these two sources then is that:

A. Only a person who is a public official, not a private citizen, can be impeached.

B. The process can be done only while they, in this case, presidents, are still in office.

C. The penalty for an impeached official, upon conviction, is their removal from office. 

As far as I am concerned this is clear, simple, and straightforward. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to be able to grasp the concept. All one needs is a healthy logic and sound reason.

At least that is what I thought until this afternoon.

A friend, a fellow Trump supporter, one who I hold in high esteem, called, and asked me to explain to her what the “impeachment” entailed. I shared her with the above information. She sounded confused.

I decided to simplify it for her by providing an example. “Let’s say,“ I started, “that a lawyer who had been working for a certain law firm for a number of years, decided to leave his job, move to another town and start a clothing business.” So far so good. “Now,” I resumed, “suppose that after he had left his firm, one of his colleagues who resented him, decided to get him fired. Can he do that? Can you fire someone from any place of work where he is no longer employed?” I asked.

“Of course not, “answered my friend without hesitation.

“Great,” I thought to myself. That should be easy. “Now,” I moved on, “let us pretend that the lawyer who left the office, moved to another town, and opened a clothing business, is President Trump…” A long silence on the other side of the telephone line prompted me to ask, “hello, are you still there?”
“Yes,” she responded hesitantly, “but the media keeps telling us that he is still going to be tried. Let us hope you are right, let us……”

“Wait a minute,” I interrupted her. “Do you believe that Donald J. Trump is still in office?” I probed her. “No, of course not,” she answered very confidently. “Biden is the President. The media shows him sitting in the White House signing executive orders……He is the sitting president.”

“Then,” I persisted, “in that case, since Donald J. Trump is not the President, he is now a private citizen like you and I, correct?”

“yes…..”

“Therefore, according to the U.S. Constitution, he cannot be impeached. Unless, of course, there are two presidents or there is something that you and I and many others do not know…..,” I added.

“No,  it is clear that Trump has conceded. He is no longer in the White House,” I heard her assuring answer. I decided to leave my disagreement with her regarding Trump's "conceding" to another occasion. One step at a time.

Just as I was about to heave a big sigh of relief, I heard her say, “But in the news….well,” she added realizing her predicament, “as I said, I hope you are right….”

Unfortunately, she is not the only one who views this unequivocal issue in such a bewildered manner. Many people that I consider intelligent and perceptive seem to have difficulty grasping such a very straightforward issue.

I fear that my friend, along with many others, have lost their ability to think independently. Their judgmental faculties have been assailed and are in danger of being removed from them. They, themselves, it seems, have become subject to an impeachment. In their case, it is the impeachment of reason