A weekly window on the American political scene hosted by the Monitor's politics editors.

What constitutes 'impeachable' conduct?

Samuel Corum/AP
Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas, questions Gordon Sondland, US Ambassador to the European Union, during a House Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2019.

Dear reader:

What constitutes an impeachable offense?

In the wake of last week’s hearings, some Trump defenders have been arguing that while the president’s interactions with Ukraine may not have been “perfect,” none of it rises to the level of impeachment.

Why We Wrote This

Ultimately, a majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate will get to define what’s impeachable – and that may hinge on a number of factors.

Retiring GOP Rep. Will Hurd – a moderate Texan who’s been willing to criticize the president – called Mr. Trump’s July 25th phone conversation with the president of Ukraine “inappropriate,” but said “an impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelming, clear and unambiguous.” In his view, the evidence presented so far does not meet that standard.

Likewise, “President Donald Trump has not been credibly accused of committing any crime, much less a high crime or misdemeanor,” writes The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway – implying that impeachable offenses should be above and beyond basic criminality.

Notably, Democrats have begun talking about “bribery” rather than a “quid pro quo” – bribery being “one of only two specific impeachable offenses listed in the Constitution (the other being treason),” as Jeff Greenfield points out in The Bulwark. Yet Mr. Greenfield also argues that Republicans are incorrect to insist an act must be criminal to be impeachable. He points out that it’s not hard to come up with hypothetical situations that would not be criminal yet would clearly merit impeachment, just as it’s possible to envision scenarios where a crime technically was committed that no one would see as necessitating a response. 

Ultimately, what’s impeachable is whatever a majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate think is impeachable.

And often, that may have as much to do with the bigger picture as with the incident at hand. The New York Times’s Ross Douthat argues persuasively that the reason President Bill Clinton may have survived his impeachment process while President Richard Nixon did not was not simply because of different degrees of malfeasance involved – or even different degrees of partisanship. No, what may have mattered most was that President Nixon’s second term featured “a series of economic shocks” – including an oil crisis, stock market crash, stagflation, and a recession – while President Clinton’s was a “peak of American power, pride and optimism.”

If “impeachable” is in the eye of the beholder, then the strength of today’s economy may be providing a lens that is more helpful to Mr. Trump than anything else.

Let us know what you’re thinking at csmpolitics@csmonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to What constitutes 'impeachable' conduct?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today