The impeachment process in the House was hardly perfect—and the way that process played out made it far less likely, rather than more likely, that Republican or conservative voters, politicians or activists would accept the Trump impeachment as justified and appropriate.
Keith E. Whittington is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University. He teaches and writes about American constitutional theory and development, federalism, judicial politics, and the presidency. He is the author most recently of "Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech."
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
Despite what the president’s defenders say, the answer is no.
Despite what White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy have argued, it is constitutionally acceptable for the House to initiate an impeachment without a formal vote.
President Trump has suggested periodically that the Supreme Court would intervene to block a hypothetical impeachment and trial since (he argues) he has not committed a high crime or misdemeanor. Of course, Trump does not just make this stuff up.
Donald Trump has stoked new fears of an imperial presidency. His obvious fascination with the powers of foreign autocrats is unprecedented for an American president.
From the day that Donald Trump was inaugurated as president, people have been arguing that he should be impeached. That effort faced some rather serious obstacles. Not everyone was convinced that any impeachable offenses had been committed. Not everyone was convinced that impeachment was the right remedy, even if the president had committed impeachable offenses.
There is a tendency to think of impeachable offenses as like landmines. If the president accidentally or purposefully steps on one, then it explodes and he must suffer the consequences. Constitutional lawyers might find this line of thinking particularly attractive because it would allow them to get to work on identifying a finite set of actions as high crimes and misdemeanors and to set Congress about the business of determining whether the president has actually committed such offenses.