The ‘Corrupt Purposes’ Impeachment
Why the House logic is a danger to all future Presidents.
The Editorial BoardJan. 22, 2020 6:50 pm ET
Opinion: The Democrat's Impeachment Case Could Set Dangerous Precedents
0:00 / 1:04
Opinion: The Democrat's Impeachment Case Could Set Dangerous Precedents
On Jan. 22, 2020, Republican Senators responded to the impeachment case presented by House Democrats, and the possible repercussions it could have on the presidency. Image: Caroline Brehman/Zuma Press
As House managers make their impeachment case, many Americans will dismiss it all as a partisan effort that hasn’t persuaded the country and will die in the Senate. They have a point. But the precedents that Democrats are setting could live on, so forgive us if we explain how dangerous the House’s impeachment logic is to future Presidents and the Constitution’s separation of powers.
Especially pernicious is the new House “corrupt purposes” standard for removing a President from office. The House managers don’t assert that any specific action by President Trump was an abuse of power or a violation of law. They don’t deny he can delay aid to a foreign country or ask a foreign leader to investigate corruption. Presidents do that all the time. Instead they assert in their first impeachment article that Mr. Trump is guilty of “abuse of power” because he committed those acts for “corrupt purposes.”
As an aside here, we should repeat that a President doesn’t have to break a specific law to commit an impeachable offense. Mr. Trump’s lawyers are wrong on this point. Presidents were accused of breaking specific laws in America’s three previous impeachments. But under the Constitution a President can commit “high crimes and misdemeanors” if he commits non-criminal acts that exceed his executive authority or if he refuses to execute the law.
But this means committing specific acts that are impeachable in and of themselves. Examples might be deploying U.S. troops against political opponents, or suspending habeas corpus without Congressional assent. (Lincoln received a Congressional pass in wartime.)
House Democrats are going much further and declaring that Mr. Trump’s acts are impeachable because he did them for “personal political benefit.” He isn’t accused of corruption per se. His Ukraine interventions are said to be corrupt because he intended them to help him win re-election this year. In other words, his actions were impeachable only because his motives were self-serving.
Think about this in the context of history and as a precedent. Every President has made foreign-policy decisions that he thinks may help his re-election. That’s what President Obama did in 2012 when he asked Dmitry Medvedev to tell Vladimir Putin to ease up on missile defense until after the election. Mitt Romney was criticizing Mr. Obama for being soft on Mr. Putin, and Mr. Obama wanted a political favor from the dictator to help him win re-election.
Was Mr. Obama’s motive also corrupt and thus impeachable? We can guess what Mr. Romney thought at the time, but he didn’t say Mr. Obama should be impeached. He tried to defeat him at the ballot box.
As 21 Republican state attorneys general explained in an important letter to the Senate on Wednesday, “It cannot be a legitimate basis to impeach a President for acting in a legal manner that may also be politically advantageous. Such a standard would be cause for the impeachment of virtually every President, past, present, and future.”
The AGs add that the “House’s corrupt motives theory is dangerous to democracy because it encourages impeachment whenever the President exercises his constitutional authority in a way that offends the opposing political party, which ispredisposed to view his motives with skepticism and motivated by its own motives to regain that very office.”
Some sages dismiss this argument as slippery-slope alarmism that won’t come to pass. Their belief is that Mr. Trump is uniquely a threat to constitutional order and a future Congress wouldn’t apply the same logic to a more conventional President. Others want to make impeachment more routine as a check on presidential power.
This is wishful thinking. Once unleashed, the corrupt motives theory will become a temptation whenever a President is disliked and down in the polls. The mere threat of common impeachment will make Presidents much more beholden to Congress.
With this in mind, the Republican AGs advise the Senate to “explicitly reject” the House’s legal theory. This might take the form of a Senate resolution at the time of acquittal. The crucial point is to reject impeachment as a regular tool of partisan punishment, reserving it for genuine cases of presidential abuse.
Why the House logic is a danger to all future Presidents.
The Editorial BoardJan. 22, 2020 6:50 pm ET
Opinion: The Democrat's Impeachment Case Could Set Dangerous Precedents
0:00 / 1:04
Opinion: The Democrat's Impeachment Case Could Set Dangerous Precedents
On Jan. 22, 2020, Republican Senators responded to the impeachment case presented by House Democrats, and the possible repercussions it could have on the presidency. Image: Caroline Brehman/Zuma Press
As House managers make their impeachment case, many Americans will dismiss it all as a partisan effort that hasn’t persuaded the country and will die in the Senate. They have a point. But the precedents that Democrats are setting could live on, so forgive us if we explain how dangerous the House’s impeachment logic is to future Presidents and the Constitution’s separation of powers.
Especially pernicious is the new House “corrupt purposes” standard for removing a President from office. The House managers don’t assert that any specific action by President Trump was an abuse of power or a violation of law. They don’t deny he can delay aid to a foreign country or ask a foreign leader to investigate corruption. Presidents do that all the time. Instead they assert in their first impeachment article that Mr. Trump is guilty of “abuse of power” because he committed those acts for “corrupt purposes.”
As an aside here, we should repeat that a President doesn’t have to break a specific law to commit an impeachable offense. Mr. Trump’s lawyers are wrong on this point. Presidents were accused of breaking specific laws in America’s three previous impeachments. But under the Constitution a President can commit “high crimes and misdemeanors” if he commits non-criminal acts that exceed his executive authority or if he refuses to execute the law.
But this means committing specific acts that are impeachable in and of themselves. Examples might be deploying U.S. troops against political opponents, or suspending habeas corpus without Congressional assent. (Lincoln received a Congressional pass in wartime.)
House Democrats are going much further and declaring that Mr. Trump’s acts are impeachable because he did them for “personal political benefit.” He isn’t accused of corruption per se. His Ukraine interventions are said to be corrupt because he intended them to help him win re-election this year. In other words, his actions were impeachable only because his motives were self-serving.
Think about this in the context of history and as a precedent. Every President has made foreign-policy decisions that he thinks may help his re-election. That’s what President Obama did in 2012 when he asked Dmitry Medvedev to tell Vladimir Putin to ease up on missile defense until after the election. Mitt Romney was criticizing Mr. Obama for being soft on Mr. Putin, and Mr. Obama wanted a political favor from the dictator to help him win re-election.
Was Mr. Obama’s motive also corrupt and thus impeachable? We can guess what Mr. Romney thought at the time, but he didn’t say Mr. Obama should be impeached. He tried to defeat him at the ballot box.
As 21 Republican state attorneys general explained in an important letter to the Senate on Wednesday, “It cannot be a legitimate basis to impeach a President for acting in a legal manner that may also be politically advantageous. Such a standard would be cause for the impeachment of virtually every President, past, present, and future.”
The AGs add that the “House’s corrupt motives theory is dangerous to democracy because it encourages impeachment whenever the President exercises his constitutional authority in a way that offends the opposing political party, which ispredisposed to view his motives with skepticism and motivated by its own motives to regain that very office.”
Some sages dismiss this argument as slippery-slope alarmism that won’t come to pass. Their belief is that Mr. Trump is uniquely a threat to constitutional order and a future Congress wouldn’t apply the same logic to a more conventional President. Others want to make impeachment more routine as a check on presidential power.
This is wishful thinking. Once unleashed, the corrupt motives theory will become a temptation whenever a President is disliked and down in the polls. The mere threat of common impeachment will make Presidents much more beholden to Congress.
With this in mind, the Republican AGs advise the Senate to “explicitly reject” the House’s legal theory. This might take the form of a Senate resolution at the time of acquittal. The crucial point is to reject impeachment as a regular tool of partisan punishment, reserving it for genuine cases of presidential abuse.
