-Gila Region Community News, Calendar, Forum-

Today, August 21, 2018, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to crimes and implicated Donald J. Trump as a co-conspirator, a fellow felon. This demeans the Office of the President. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: "Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office."

We now have on the record, in federal court, the president of the United States declared by a confessed felon to be a fellow conspirator, accused in a federal court by a confessed felon to be another felon.

Paying off porn actresses, extramarital affairs, paying off Playboy models, directing criminal activities "for the purpose of influencing the election" ... At what point, Mr. Pearce, do you say enough is enough and raise your voice in opposition to Mr. Trump? Do your values allow you to support this demeaning and criminal behavior conducted from within the Office of the President?

I do not believe that a pay off becomes an impeachable offense because it happens to go to a porn actress or a Playboy model. The occupation of the payoff recipient is irrelevant (and one should tread carefully about implications that either "porn actress" or "Playboy model" is a disreputable occupation for a woman, unless one also called for the Senate not to seat Scott Brown because he posed nude for Cosmopolitan). The only thing relevant about the payoff is whether it was lawful -- in this instance whether it was "for the purpose of influencing the election."

At this point, the only publicly available non-circumstantial evidence of the purpose of the payoffs comes from Michael Cohen. I happen to personally believe that Michael Cohen is telling the truth in this instance. But I also believe that Michael Cohen is capable of saying anything at all, and even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day. Without more, I would not invoke a constitutional crisis based solely upon the word of Michael Cohen, under oath or not. If and when more evidence surfaces, my opinion may change.

If allegations of extramarital affairs are a basis for impeachment, FDR, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Ford, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, and GW Bush all should have been impeached, along with Trump. The only presidents in our lifetimes not subject to impeachment on that basis are Truman, Nixon, Carter, and Obama. By my count, that's 10 out of the last 14 presidents who should have been or should be impeached. Is that the country we want?

If Steve Pearce has been a sanctimonious moralizer about issues such as this, then he should be called out as a hypocrite. On the other hand, impeachment is a very serious matter. The Republicans trivialized impeachment in the 1990s. We should exercise circumspection and not follow them down that road.

AW

AW,

I agree that extramarital affairs and payoffs to porn actresses and Playboy models in and of themselves do not call for impeachment.

None of the 14 adulterous presidents you mentioned were also implicated by a confessed felon to be an un-indicted co-conspirator in criminal activity, said felon being under oath, confessing his guilt to a judge, in open federal court.

Mr. Trump is only the second president (Nixon being the first) who has the distinction of being an un-indicted co-conspirator. Mr. Trump's own conspiratorial conduct to influence the outcome of a federal election has brought about this legal situation.

Black's Law Dictionary says impeachment is "To proceed against a public officer for crime or misfeasance, before a proper court, by the presentation of a written accusation called “articles of impeachment.”

In my opinion, Mr. Trump being implicated in open court as a criminal co-conspirator warrants such Congressional proceedings. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal. Mr. Clinton was impeached. He was not removed. Likewise, Mr. Trump deserves due process to determine whether or not he should be removed. We do not know (and should not assume) how the Senators will vote after seeing the evidence.

Impeachment is our constitutional remedy since there is some controversy about whether a president can be indicted. Mr. Trump has conveniently chosen a Supreme Court nominee whose views on executive power say a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Apparently Mr. Trump could shoot someone on 5th Ave. and walk free. Since Mr. Trump, and many of his supporters, believe the President is above the law and cannot be tried in court, that leaves us with impeachment and/or the 25th amendment.

I agree with you that impeachment is serious business. Mr. Trump knowingly and willingly directing Mr. Cohen to commit campaign financing crimes, to influence the outcome of a federal election, is serious business. It is a five-year felony... serious business.

Prosecutors routinely base the timing of bringing charges on whether conditions are ripe for a conviction. Given that the prospect for a 2/3 majority in the Senate to uphold an impeachment is basically non-existent now, what would you hope to gain by an impeachment vote in the House now? Especially since that vote would fail even in the House.

I say again, I believe Trump did a lot of things, but I've not seen proof of them, and were I on a jury, based upon the available record, I'd vote against conviction.

When there's actual proof -- as opposed to a lot of extremely reasonable and very likely correct supposition -- the situation may be different. But for right now, what strategic purpose would be served by impeachment?

AW

AW,

I cannot answer the question about strategic purpose. I am not thinking strategically.

I also cannot state with certainty that there is not now (or will not be in the future) a possibility of 2/3 of the Senate voting for impeachment. If you had asked me five weeks ago would the Senate vote 98-0 against Trump, I would have said it is unlikely. Yet in late July 2018 the Senate voted 98-0 to approve a proposal to oppose sending US officials to be interrogated by Russian officials.

So, I will not prognosticate, but I do believe in applying constitutional remedy when appropriate. I believe there is sufficient evidence now, but I am patient and willing to wait for more evidence ... if that is the strategic thing to do.

Lets not waste time thinking about impeachment. The time may come, but it's not now. Besides, Pence would likely be worse. Instead, focus your time and attention on helping the democrats gain control of congress so we can stonewall Trump for the next two years. The dems likely won't get much done, but it gives us time to get our ducks in a row for 2020.