Of impeachment and rigged elections

Just a reminder: Donald Trump took an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. Obamacare remains the law. Trump is not upholding it; he has sabotaged it -- deliberately.

This is impeachable. If the House were in the hands of the Democrats, they would need no further evidence or cause: Trump would be impeached for flouting a law and refusing to uphold his oath.

Actually, Gerry Ford had it right when he said that “an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” But a refusal to uphold the law has always been considered impeachable. From a Chicago Tribune piece published last February:

Interestingly, the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," which was drawn from English law, did not produce much debate; apparently the founders regarded it as a term of art. Crucially, the term "misdemeanor" did not mean a distinct set of crimes (as opposed to felony); it referred instead to bad acts, in the form of exceptionally serious public misconduct.

A "high crime and misdemeanor" could certainly be a crime, but the term could also include acts or omissions that did not amount to a violation of the criminal law. If an official simply refused to do his job for six months, there is a good argument that he would be committing a "misdemeanor." In England, it was even said that serious misconduct, as in a case of committing the nation to an ignominious treaty, was a legitimate basis for impeachment.

The upshot is both simple and clarifying: The Constitution allows impeachment of the president for large-scale abuse of the authority of his office, and also for obtaining his office by corrupt means. Intense policy disagreements and partisan squabbles are never legitimate bases for impeachment. The same is true for purely private misconduct, even if it is genuinely terrible — and for making decisions that end up being struck down in court.

From the WP a few days ago:

What if he won’t or cannot execute his duties and/or cannot preserve, protect and defend the Constitution? The Constitution says the remedy is impeachment.

Within the past 24 hours we’ve seen the president threaten to ignore or violate the First Amendment and threaten a group of Americans with denial of service to which they are legally entitled.

This essay looks into the British origins of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors":

The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

Andrew Johnson was impeached because he thumbed his nose at a law passed by Congress. The law, called the Tenure of Office Act, regulated the President's ability to fire an Executive Branch officer who had previously been approved by Congress. Johnson disputed the constitutionality of this law. In our system, constitutionality is determined by the Supreme Court; nevertheless, Johnson simply decided to ignore a piece of legislation he didn't like. Result: Impeachment.

How does Trump's unilateral decision to toss aside Obamacare differ from Johnson's unilateral decision to toss aside the Tenure of Office Act?

The hidden factor. Impeachment is justified. So how does Trump keep getting away with it? Why isn't Trump acting like a president under threat? Why aren't the Republicans bothered by the possibility of a turnover in the House, followed by the humiliating spectacle of a presidential impeachment?

Under such circumstances, it seems baffling for Steve Bannon to threaten primaries against insufficiently radical Republicans. In other words, he demands a repeat of the Tea Party debacle, when radical right candidates like Sharron Angle and Carl Paladino insured Democratic victories. With stakes so high, why would Bannon insist on running weaker candidates less likely to prevail in general elections? Why doesn't he seem even slightly worried about losing the House, and thus losing the presidency?

There is a hidden factor at play. That hidden factor, in my opinion, comes down to these four words: Election rigging is real.

Since 2004, I've maintained that it is possible to rig elections. That possibility has now been established beyond rational debate: See here and here and here and here. With the Trumpists in charge of the executive branch and compliant (complicit?) Secretaries of State installed across the land, there is no way to impede the hackers from doing their worst.

Remember the scene in Natural Born Killers in which Mallory wistfully asks: "Is there such a thing as a cop-less town? That would be paradise." Behold paradise: Trumpland is a cop-less town.

And yet we continue to act as though vote rigging is a dark fantasy and a baseless conspiracy theory. I say that rigging is real, and that there is no other explanation for Bannon's boldness.

(It suddenly occurs to me: Mallory's idea of paradise is shared by many a libertarian. Hows fitting! Ayn Rand started down her path when she fell in love (from a distance) with a serial killer. She was a born Mallory.)