Comparing Trump's Impeachment with Nixon and Clinton: Apples, Oranges, or Just Chairs?
The term 'apples and oranges' is often used to describe two things that are completely different and can't meaningfully be compared. However, when discussing the impeachment inquiries of former U.S. Presidents Donald Trump, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton, the comparison is more accurately described as 'apples and chairs.' This article will delve into the differences and similarities between these impeachment inquiries, highlighting why Trump's case is of the utmost importance.
Understanding the Context
The impeachment of a U.S. President is a highly serious matter that impacts the functioning of the government and the trust of the American public. While some argue that comparisons between these impeachments are apples and oranges, this analogy fails to capture the nuanced differences and the significance of each impeachment. Similarities exist between the cases, but the respective offenses and the subsequent outcomes differ greatly, leading us to think more like comparing apples to chairs.
Crimes and Implications
Bill Clinton: Clinton's impeachment was centered around his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, where he lied under oath about an extramarital affair. It should be noted that Clinton was not convicted of a crime; rather, he was impeached on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. Furthermore, he was disbarred from practicing law, and this had significant professional consequences. Despite these consequences, it can be argued that the charges were, at best, "trumped-up" by some critical observers.
Richard Nixon: Nixon's impeachment was due to the Watergate scandal, which involved several serious crimes, including burglary, theft, obstruction of justice, and cheating on a presidential election. He also evaded a grand jury and illegally spied on political opponents. His actions led to the resignations of several high-ranking officials, and his eventual acquittal by the Senate preceded his release from office. The Watergate scandal was characterized by a vast cover-up that spanned multiple officials and departments within the government.
Donald Trump: Trump's impeachment was based on allegations of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, specifically related to his communications with Ukraine. Unlike Nixon, Trump was not convicted of any crimes. This has led some to argue that his impeachment is merely a political publicity stunt, propagated by the radical socialist Democrats. Trump refused to cooperate with the special counsel (Robert Mueller), claiming abuse of power on part of the Democrats.
Strategies and Outcomes
Nixon: During Nixon's impeachment, an independent counsel was appointed to investigate the crimes committed in conjunction with the Watergate scandal. The counsel confirmed the crimes and provided detailed evidence, leading to a public call for Nixon to resign. The official inquiry allowed for a thorough and transparent investigation, maintaining the integrity of the process.
Trump: The investigation of Trump's alleged crimes was carried out by a special counsel rather than an independent counsel. While the special counsel (Robert Mueller) could not confirm any crimes, the investigations revealed significant disclosure of information, including classified documents and communications. This investigation was conducted by the House, bypassing both the President and the judiciary, which left a sense of taint on the process.
Historical Precedents and Context
Intriguingly, every elected Republican since Eisenhower has faced a threat of impeachment from Democrats, with one exception: Ford. Even Ford, who served a short term after the resignation of Nixon, faced multiple impeachment threats. This pattern highlights the dangers and political nature of impeachment, as even the most minimally elected Presidents can face such scrutiny.
While all three impeachments ended without a conviction, the nature and extent of the offenses, and the resulting consequences, paint vastly different pictures. Clinton's offense was personal and more about maintaining public trust. Nixon's offenses were more serious, involving a broad conspiracy and cover-up. Trump's offenses, while significant, are centered around policy differences and controversies rather than indictable crimes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the chief comparable element is guilt, the nature of the offenses, the consequences, and the methods of investigation are distinctly different. Trump's impeachment stands out as perhaps the most significant, as it implicates a nation's democratic process and centers around policy differences rather than direct crimes. The comparisons to Nixon and Clinton, while instructive, do not fully capture the depth of Trump's case. This is akin to comparing a speeding ticket with murder. Trump's impeachment, in this light, is akin to 'apples and chairs' - apples in the sense of guilt, but so different in the implications and extent that the analogy ultimately fails to capture the true nature of the offense.