Deaf law professor analyzes Trump impeachment & acquittal
THE DAILY MOTH:
Hello there, can you introduce yourself again?
SCHWARTZ:
My name is Michael Schwartz. I am professor of law at Syracuse University College of Law which is located in Syracuse, New York.
THE DAILY MOTH:
Now, we are going to have a discussion about President Trump’s impeachment trial process. Just a few minutes ago, he was acquitted of both charges. However, Mitt Romney who is a Republican decided to join the Democratic party in finding Trump guilty on the first charge related to abuse of power. For the second charge, the vote was 53-47 with majority deciding on “not guilty”. The vote was basically divided based on the parties and now Trump has been acquitted.
SCHWARTZ:
Free as a bird flying off.
THE DAILY MOTH:
He is now off the hook.
SCHWARTZ:
Off the hook indeed.
THE DAILY MOTH:
It is his second serious controversy starting with the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. He was off the hook on that one and again with the impeachment.
Did you want to share something?
SCHWARTZ:
It’s interesting. Speaker of the House Pelosi was hesitant and didn’t want to impeach, I’ll sign the word like this, for the Russia investigation. However, they found out about the phone call to Ukraine. Pelosi then felt like she had no choice, but to proceed with the impeachment inquiry.
THE DAILY MOTH:
So, both scenarios progressed differently. Now, let’s go back to the basics. What does ‘impeachment’ mean and what does the US Constitution say about that?
SCHWARTZ:
This is the sign language I use for ‘impeachment’, because it is the same as a grand jury indictment. It is the act of filing a charge. The US Constitution says that the US House shall have the sole power of impeachment which means only the House can impeach. Not only they can impeach the president, but also federal judges or federal workers who violate the trust of the US government. 3:00 So, there have been many impeachments of judges in the Senate throughout history. This is not the only one. In fact, it is the third impeachment of an US president. The first one was Johnson, I believe, in 18-something. The second one was with Clinton and now, Trump is the third one.
Why did the US House impeach Trump?
Well, Trump made a phone call on July 25th. Prior to that, Bolton said in his book, or his manuscript, that on April or maybe prior to that, Trump had ordered him (Bolton) to help force the Ukrainian government…
THE DAILY MOTH:
You could sign ‘Ukraine’ like this.
SCHWARTZ:
Okay, to help force them to meet Giuliani.
THE DAILY MOTH:
Yes, Trump’s lawyer.
SCHWARTZ:
He is Trump’s personal lawyer. That was back in April then Trump had the July 25th phone call and afterwards, he withheld the funds until this was discovered around September, I believe. 4:23 Then in a panic, he releases the withheld funding.
THE DAILY MOTH:
This was 400 million dollars in military aid that was withheld, correct?
SCHWARTZ:
Right, so the House was stunned and that was when Pelosi decided to proceed with the impeachment inquiry. The first step is the private depositions behind closed doors. They used the same rules that the Republicans established for the Clinton impeachment inquiry. They operated under the same rules! They did the secret depositions then they did the open testimonies in the House. So, I heard that 17 witnesses testified to the inquiry into July 25th phone and the subsequent withholding of the aid and then the coverup. So, regarding these 17 witnesses, the House wanted to subpoena Trump for the witnesses. Bolton was one of them. Mulvaney was another one and two more I that recall. Trump ordered the witnesses to deny the request and to shut out the House. So, not even one documentation was handed over. Not one witnesses was allowed to testify.
THE DAILY MOTH:
It was a full blockage.
SCHWARTZ:
They were fully blocked. So, that’s why the House voted to impeach and again, it was along the party lines. One thing that I’ve noticed in the media coverage, in the newspapers and on the TV, they keep using the word “partisan” to reflect the strain between the Democratic party and the Republican party as if they have the same roles. They’re not the same! The Democrats had evidence with 17 witnesses and a lot of documents showing Trump’s responsibility for the phone call and for withholding the aid. The Republicans used ‘smoke and mirrors’ strategy and accused the process of being unfair when the Democrats actually were using the rules set by the Republicans. The Democrats tried to help the Senate understand the need of the witnesses because trials need witnesses! What the Democrats did in the Senate with 7 impeachment managers led by Adam Schiff from California. They introduced what was obtained in the House inquiries, however, these were only taped testimonies. These are not live testimonies! Bolton said he was ready to testify! The Republicans told him no! It’s a sad day when it is the first time in the US history that the Senate didn’t conduct a fair trial. You can’t have a trial without witnesses and documents!
THE DAILY MOTH:
Let’s talk about Trump’s legal team who have said there was no crime compared to the Nixon presidency back then. Nixon was a part of the Watergate scandal where people broke into Democratic politicians’ offices to steal documents and then tried to cover it up by firing the people involved. The crime was obvious in this scenario.
However, Trump’s legal team said he did eventually release the 400 million dollar aid package and…
SCHWARTZ:
He released the 400 million package after he was caught. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) found that he withheld the aid which violated the law.
THE DAILY MOTH:
They did release that information, yes.
SCHWARTZ:
Constitution scholars, people who analyze the Constitution, have said that you don’t need a crime to find a US president guilty. It’s a widely accepted that if there is abuse of power, that is an impeachable act. That gives the Senate the right to remove the president from the office. Long time ago, the “Founding Fathers”, also knowns as the Framers, made it clear that bribery…
THE DAILY MOTH:
You could sign the word ‘bribery’ like this.
SCHWARTZ:
Act of bribery is a violation of the US Constitution. It is abuse of power, period. I think the discussion about whether he abused his power or not, many scholars, writers, analysts and historians all say that what Trump did matches the classic definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. Shaking down a government and demanding that they investigate a political rival, Biden, in exchange for the 400-million-dollar aid package plus a meeting with the White House. If that is not abuse of power for his own benefit, completely ignoring the United States national security interests. The Ukrainians are fighting our enemy, the Russians. Withholding funds hurt the Ukrainians which helps Russia. So, the abuse of power was clearly established by the House with the 17 witnesses.
THE DAILY MOTH:
How would you describe it? It seems obvious, however, why has the process been so divided? Why haven’t there been a number of Republicans who agree if the evidence was so clear-cut? Why are they so unified in disagreeing with the Democrats? They seem to feel like the Democrats are just trying to reverse the 2016 election results.
SCHWARTZ:
Right, right.
THE DAILY MOTH:
So, how would you describe the Republicans’ viewpoint? Could you paint a picture for us?
SCHWARTZ:
The Republicans are mostly white men, older white men, in the Senate. My feeling is that the Republicans are realizing the changing demographic of America. America is becoming less white and more diverse. By this, I mean more people of color, people with disabilities, people from different backgrounds that are non-white. My feeling is this was maybe the last gasp of a party that wants to hold onto its power. Also, I think that they are absolutely terrified of crossing Trump. They are terrified of confronting him because he has iron control over the Republican party. Some have said that it’s not the Republican party anymore. It is the Party of Trump. It’s interesting. In 1973 or 1974, when the Watergate scandal was happening, several conservative Republicans like Howard Baker went up to Nixon and said, “Game’s up. The Congress will vote to impeach you. It is time to go.”
These were 3 leading Republicans! Today, those Republicans do not exist. They’ve gone and have been replaced by the likes of Mitch McConnell. Remember he withheld Obama’s pick for the Senate. 14:53 So, I’m not sure why the Republicans couldn’t break ranks and get rid of him. They could bring in Pence who is probably the more acceptable option to the American voters than Trump. Beats me!
Another issue with the American voters is that Trump’s approval rating, just released yesterday, is now at 49%. I don’t know what Bill Clinton’s rating was at the time, but people were shocked to learn of the affair in the Oval Office and Clinton lied about it. It seems like people have strong feelings about that while the phone call and withholding 400 million is almost considered more acceptable. It looks like people don’t take these actions too seriously. It’s not only the Republicans, but also with the American voters, Trump is gaining popularity. So, did the Democrats choose the impeachment route where they should’ve found another way to reprimand Trump? What are your thoughts on that?
Yes, the Democrats could’ve fought Trump’s obstruction of introduction of documents and witnesses in the courtroom. They could’ve not voted to impeach him until the court fight had concluded. The law is on the Democrats’ side. Lawyers and judges have said that there is no absolute immunity, none whatsoever. You cannot claim absolute immunity protection. Maybe there are a few documents that do have sensitive information that need to be withheld and that’s understandable. They could redact the sensitive information in these documents. They must obey a congressional summons. Some people say that the Democrats should’ve waited and fought in the court to get the witnesses and the documents. But wait, last year, the Democrats sued Trump’s lawyer, Donald McGahn, and subpoenaed him. He was resistant so the Democrats took him to court. That was last year, maybe in early 2019. Now, it’s been one year, and the court fight continues.
Courts do have a long process.
It’s too long and the Democrats were concerned that Trump is trying to steal the 2020 election. That’s why they decided to get the 17 witnesses’ testimonies and felt that it was enough to move forward. Maybe that’s a tactical error, I don’t know. History will judge us. Speaking of history, I don’t think history will be kind to Trump. I think history will look back on the Senate and say, “How can you have a trial without witnesses and without documents?”
That is difficult to comprehend.
What do you think of the Senate’s trial process? I think it lasted a total of 2 weeks? That’s fairly brief so what’s your view on that?
It was not a trial. It was more of an introduction to the evidence that should’ve required a real trial! The House managers did a fantastic job of presenting evidence. Several Republican Senators applauded them and said that they are disgusted by what Trump did and that it was wrong. But they’re still too afraid to confront him because he has a base. Like Trump said about 2-3 years ago, during his campaign, he said, “I could stand on the Fifth Avenue and shoot someone, and my people would stay with me.”
He’s actually right! What I’m the most fearful of now is, “What is holding him back now?”
The Congress’ impeachment power is dead, finished, gone. From now on, how can the Congress force the president to be in compliance? The congress has constitutional authority to investigate the Legislative branch, wait I mean, the Executive branch. The congress is the legislative branch and they have the constitutional responsibility to investigate any suspected wrongdoing. They have the right to ask for the documents and the witnesses. Now that right is gone. That is the most frightening part of this whole thing. The congress is now powerless in compelling a president and his agencies to come forward. That’s scary.
Now where do go from here? It’s 2020 and an election year. Trump will fight for his re-election as an increasingly popular incumbent.
There are two things that Trump will be doing and already has been doing. First, he’s been stocking up on or placing multiple federal judges. The federal judiciary is now becoming more and more conservative. What that means for deaf people is the ADA might be under threat. Judges might decide to overturn the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Consider the mind-boggling consequences for the environment. Some of the scientific experts have said that we have maybe 10 years until it’s too late to avoid a catastrophic climate change. Whether it’s a flooding, forest fires and widespread hunger. If Trump is re-elected, all bets are off.
Who knows what else he’ll think up after being re-elected? He will interpret that to mean that he can do absolutely anything, damn the Congress. He will think, “I have the power to do what I want.”
Suppose there is a scenario, right now it is not election year for most congressmen in the House and Senate. Not until, I think, two years from now. Typically, the House would hold elections every two years, while there are Senators who are up for re-election in two year. Suppose that the Democrats become the majority in the Senate, with the House still a Democratic-majority, then would that mean they have the power to do this again?
Do you mean if the House and the Senate become Democratic-majority?
Correct, it wouldn’t happen this year, but possibly in two years.
Yes, it is possible and that is my hope. I believe that the Moderate Republicans and Democrats can work together. They can cross the party lines. They can work on bipartisan legislation on infrastructure, immigration, prescription drugs, safety and et cetera. It is possible and this is what the Framers had in mind. Checks and balance. Now, that balance is out of whack. I am hopeful that we can restore that balance. Then we’d have proper checks and balances. That’s a part of our Constitution’s purpose.
Wow, I think that covers a lot. We could really go even deeper into the topic. This is more about getting some ideas of your assessment of the impact of today’s acquittal and throughout the whole process. You can see how this has an effect on the 2020 elections moving forward.
Yes, and let’s hope that there are no foreign interferences. I am concerned because Trump’s administration shows no interest in investigating Russia’s involvement. We’ll see what happens.
Wow, I really appreciate your time and thank you so much!
My pleasure!
Until next time, see you then.
Until next time!
Captioned by aslcaptions.com