The Proper Way to Impeach: Why Steve Bannon was Right for the Wrong Reason

The Proper Way to Impeach: Why Steve Bannon was Right for the Wrong Reason

By Jonathan Turley

Below is my column in The Messenger on my response to Steve Bannon and others who were upset that I testified [last] week that, while there is ample evidence to launch the impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Joe Biden, I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment. That is the purpose of the inquiry in establishing a full record for such articles of impeachment. By withholding judgment and building a record, the Republicans are restoring a regular order to this constitutional process.

Here is the column:

Yesterday, I spent a very long day testifying in the first hearing of the House impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden. Not unexpectedly, my testimony angered many on both the left and the right. As I mentioned in my testimony, there is little tolerance for opposing views in this age of rage.

Today, caution is considered cowardice and impartiality is viewed as chicanery. Yet our Constitution demands more of each of us at these moments. We can rise to that challenge, as the Framers hoped we would, or we can continue our national descent into rage and ruin.

It is the difference between laying the groundwork for a real impeachment or for just another political hit-job.

I was asked to testify on whether the threshold had been met for an impeachment inquiry and what the best practices would be in the investigation of President Biden. I testified that the existing evidence was more than ample to warrant an impeachment inquiry and that these allegations, if proven, would constitute impeachable conduct.

That was not enough for many. One of those was Steve Bannon, who went on social media to criticize House Republicans for not selecting someone who would testify, at the very start of an inquiry, that the case already was made for actual articles of impeachment.

Bannon suggested that I should have been placed on the “maybe list” if I was not willing to say that the committee had the basis to vote out articles of impeachment on the first day of inquiry. That, however, would be akin to calling a special grand jury and demanding an indictment before any witnesses or evidence are presented.

Bannon’s criticism is emblematic of much of what I cautioned against in my testimony. I implored the Republicans not to replicate the last two impeachments, which I believe did considerable damage to this constitutional process. In the first Trump impeachment, I appeared as the only Republican witness in the only hearing held by the House Judiciary Committee. House Democrats then just cut to the chase and impeached Donald Trump on a thin, undeveloped record.

In the second impeachment, they skipped the formalities entirely and went straight to the articles of impeachment in what I called a “snap impeachment.”

Republicans rightly criticized those prior impeachments, and their leadership has tried to return to the more principled approach used in prior inquiries like those of Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. They have spent months developing a record on what is now a clear influence-peddling scheme operated by Hunter Biden, James Biden, and their associates. Even some past critics now recognize that this was a corrupt influence-peddling operation, but most insist that Hunter was simply selling the “illusion” of influence.

As I asked the committee this week, how do we know? The point of an inquiry is whether it was just an illusion and whether the president knew or fostered such corrupt practices. Even if Hunter Biden and his associates treated this as an illusion, it was influence-peddling and turned then-Vice President Biden’s office into a commodity for corruption.

This investigation has gradually tightened the circle around the president, including disclosures this week that payments from China — which the president previously denied categorically — went to Hunter Biden using the president’s Delaware home address. As I laid out in my testimony, there are ten facts that alone justify an impeachment inquiry. However, these remain allegations that must be proven or disproven in the course of the inquiry.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) could have launched an impeachment inquiry at any point in the prior year. He waited until the committees had acquired bank and other records showing millions of dollars flowing to Biden family members and communications from Hunter and others referencing access to Joe Biden for foreign clients.

That is how an impeachment inquiry should begin. The House now has credible, compelling evidence that the president may have committed high crimes and misdemeanors. It is a substantive case for an impeachment inquiry rather than just another snap judgment.

So why not just declare the president guilty? Because we do not know.

This is a constitutional process, not just some trash-talking cable show (although, admittedly, it was hard to tell at moments in the hearing).

According to polls, a majority of citizens want these questions investigated and believe that President Biden has acted improperly. Roughly half favor an impeachment inquiry. Indeed, according to a poll from ABC News and the Washington Post this week, 58 percent believe that President Biden is being “held accountable under the law like any other president” in this inquiry.

Putting aside the still undeveloped record linking the president to this money, we should not rush to declaring impeachable conduct with a plurality or mere majority of citizens. This is one of the most weighty and consequential decisions for a nation. We should only declare impeachable conduct when the record is complete and compelling.

There will continue to be tensions over how we proceed in this process.

Speaker McCarthy has been criticized by Democrats for launching the impeachment inquiry without a floor vote. That was a curious moment, since that is precisely what House Democrats did when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared an impeachment inquiry of Trump — and many of these same Democratic members defended her authority to do so.

In reality, there is no constitutional requirement for a resolution to launch an inquiry. Indeed, when this matter previously went to court, a federal judge held that even “in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry.”

I have previously said that such a vote is a best practice that should be followed in these cases, and a vote still could occur as House Democrats did. However, this inquiry began in the same way as past impeachments and would be considered constitutionally valid even without a resolution.

That brings us back to the Bannon criticism. Ironically, I have been critical of the Hunter Biden team in replicating the Bannon model by refusing to supply information to Congress. Now that obstruction is likely to be addressed quickly by the House. As I told the committee yesterday, “the Constitution is now on your side, the calendar is not.” They will likely move quickly in pursuing critical linkages to the president.

In reality, my views on impeachment were well-known and public before my testimony. There was no lack of what Bannon referenced as staff work. The House Republicans want to return to regular order on impeachments and were not calling the first hearing of an impeachment inquiry to declare impeachment articles.

Indeed, my analysis was consistent with the testimony that I gave as an expert witness in both the Clinton and the Trump impeachments. The best practices that I have laid out would benefit President Biden — just as they would have benefited President Trump if followed. That is as it should be. As I said in all three impeachment hearings, a sitting president warrants basic presumptions and protections in this constitutional process.

Frankly, Steve Bannon is right about one thing: I was appropriately on the “maybe list” — but not in the sense that he meant it. President Biden may be guilty of impeachable conduct, but that constitutional finding must be based on evidence, not impulse.

*********

(TLB) published  this article from Jonathan Turley with our appreciation for this perspective

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Header featured image (edited) credit: Turley via Web Page

Emphasis added by  (TLB) editors

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

 

 

 

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.