Illegal Versus Immoral Part 2

I've set the stage for this discussion in my previous blog.  Just because something is legal, doesn't make it moral or ethical.  I'm going to let myself discuss the impeachment proceedings under this contextual construct.  I've been watching some of the hearings, and some of the commentary.  There seems to be a line of argument that nothing illegal was done, hence, the impeachment process is a sham.  I struggle with this because of what I've now learned is meant by "high crimes and misdemeanors."  I am not a legal or constitutional scholar, but it appears that this term is not meant to reflect straightforward, legislated laws. Rather, it is meant to relate to government officials who abuse their power in some way, shape for form.  It is specifically vague.  Ironically, one thing that has become clear during this and previous administrations is that there is a belief that the President can not be charged with a crime anyway.  So, we are left with the impeachment process if we believe that the President has done something wrong.  Wrong, however, does not have to mean strictly illegal.  So, there we are.  Impeachment, by its very nature, is a political process.  It's not surprising that one party, in our two party system, can hijack the process for its own benefit.

At the onset of the Nixon impeachment proceedings, there was a clear partisan divide.  It was only after specific digressions were exposed that it became bipartisan.  In the case of the Clinton impeachment, it was purely a partisan process.  Whether President Clinton perjured himself (the ultimate transgression for which he was impeached), is still debatable in my opinion.  "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," could still be reasonably understood to mean that he did not have sexual intercourse.  From his perspective, the things they did, didn't rise to the level of sexual relations.  Regardless of this nit picking, which, by the way, I don't buy, the real question was whether this rose to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors that is related to ones ability to carry out the roles and responsibilities of the office of the president.  Did any of President Clinton's philandering impact his ability to carry out the duties of his office?  Considering the fact that Hillary was probably well aware of his transgressions, I doubt it.

Which brings us to what's going on in Washington D.C. today.  I do not believe that anything illegal has taken place, although the more investigation that is done, the more we may find (not dissimilar to both Nixon and Clinton).  However, does it rise to the level of truly impacting the duties of the presidency?  Personally, I find much of President Trump's behavior despicable.  I think it's horribly wrong to cast aspersions on our own government servants to a foreign power.  I think it's ethically wrong to ask a foreign power to dig up dirt on a political opponent.  However, it's not illegal.  And, it's probably been done since the founding of our country.  We just never had the internet and news cycle that we have today.

While two wrongs don't make a right, the Democrats have as much right to impeach Trump as the Republicans had to impeach Clinton.  I keep hearing that we should let the voters decide.  They will.  The Senate will not convict.  I also hear that we're wasting the legislators time.  They should be focused on working for the people of the United States.  Sorry, that's bullshit.  The Democratic controlled House clearly limits what Republicans can propose legislatively. At the same time, the Republicans won't allow legislation passed in the house to even be debated in the Senate.  With or without impeachment hearings, nothing is getting done anyway.  So, we're left with impeachment hearings, controlled by the Democrats. I wish they'd give a little more time to the Republicans so that the "fairness" issue wouldn't be so contentious.  However, the Democrats control the House, so that's their prerogative, just as the Republicans control the Senate, and you can be sure they will control how a trial in the Senate goes.  So, we're stuck with a process that will actually give us information as voters to decide for ourselves whether something illegal, immoral, or just distasteful was done by the President.  And maybe that's how it should be.