Withholding Judgment on Impeachment with John Rothmann
2020-01-26 · Guest: John Rothmann (KGO 810 AM talk show host) · 52:24
The political nature of the Trump impeachment trial
Bob Zadek and John Rothmann discuss the impeachment of Donald Trump, analyzing it as a political rather than a strictly legal process. They compare the current situation to the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, as well as the resignation of Richard Nixon, exploring the constitutional standards and the strategic decisions made by both parties.
Topics: Impeachment, Donald Trump, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Constitutional Law, Senate Trial, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Political Strategy
Speakers: Bob Zadek, John Rothmann
The Mother of All Live Streaming [00:00]
Bob Zadek: Hello everyone, welcome to the Bob Zadek Show, the longest-running live libertarian talk radio show on all of radio. Well, we all entertain ourselves by watching, by bulking up on all this streaming television, great content out there, all of this drama on Netflix and HBO and the like. Well, this past week and next week, we have been exposed to, dare I say subjected to, the mother of all live streaming, and that is the trial, the so-called trial, of Donald J. Trump, the impeachment trial in the Senate, which follows the impeachment indictment, if you will, in the House.
And if America uses this experience the right way, America will be given, and has been given, a master’s level course in the operation of American-style democracy, with all of its unpleasantness, with all of its warts, and with all of its strength. And there is so much going on, and regretfully, with some notable exceptions, one of which you will enjoy in about 10 seconds, with only a few notable exceptions, the discourse, the discussion in the media, in the print media, in video, on live television, the discussion has been, in my opinion, on the surface, vacuous, obviously highly unobjective, depending upon whether you’re on the blue team or the red team.
And it is my hope with my guest this morning, a name you will all know, we will drill down and really have you understand really what is going on, what are the lessons, good and bad, of our system, our constitutional system, when it comes to impeachment. Do we have a system that actually works and accomplishes its desired goal, or is it simply being misused, and do we wish we had a system more like the parliamentary system where firing the prime minister is low drama, somewhat boring, and not momentous?
With that introduction, I’m delighted, I’m proud, I’m thrilled to welcome to the show this morning John Rothmann. John is a radio talk show host on KGO 810 AM in San Francisco. He has, to use understatement, a national at least following. He is far and away the most popular talk show host in the Bay Area, perhaps in the country, certainly the most informed. He brings to his profession of being a talk show host a lifetime of experience and authorship on American politics and on American history. John has been a mentor of mine. I hang on every word that he says, and I am thrilled to get John’s opinion on what is going on in Washington today, what is likely to go on in the future, and what, most importantly, are the lessons which, if we use the impeachment experience right, what are the lessons we can learn from impeachment? So John, welcome to the show this morning.
John Rothmann: Bob, thank you, and I love those modest introductions.
Bob Zadek: I know you do, John. Well, I have, your wife and friends have told me that you have such a poor self-image that anything I can do in my own subtle way to add a little support to that, I’m happy to do. So I’m delighted to do it, and I hope you use it to grow in your own self-image.
Is the Senate Process a Trial? [05:43]
Bob Zadek: Now John, on the subject of impeachment, the issue as the American public sees it is whether Donald J. Trump has committed bribery, treason, or other high crimes or misdemeanors such that he should be convicted, if that’s the right verb, in the Senate of having violated those standards and should be thrown out of office. And what’s going on in the Senate is labeled as a trial. It’s labeled that way from the Constitution, and that’s how the American public sees it. My first question, John, on this trial, is it a trial? Everything you and I know and appreciate about trials, none of it applies to the process in the Senate. So comment, if you will, on whether what is going on in the Senate is analogous at all to a trial, or is it, as I tend to think, is it nothing other than the Senate debating and voting on what in my view is nothing other than highly specialized legislation?
John Rothmann: Well, let me answer you first of all by saying it is not a trial in the traditional sense. What we have now is not a legal process; we have a political process. The senators took an oath and signed a register affirming that they would be open-minded, that they would not be partial, that they would take a look at the evidence. And that’s not what’s happening. What you have is a highly partisan situation. The Democrats are already committed to the removal of the president. The Republicans are already committed to the maintenance of the president in office. And what I really think is interesting is that facts, witnesses, evidence really doesn’t matter. The positions are fixed. Somebody asked me, Bob, whether or not Mitch McConnell should disqualify himself or Lindsey Graham should disqualify themselves. Well, the same thing applies to a Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin. They’ve already predetermined. And so to answer your question directly, it is not a trial in the traditional sense.
Bob Zadek: Now, what’s interesting is, you’re quite right, the oath, which was written by the under the rules of the Senate, it’s not in the Constitution, but the senators take an oath of impartiality.
John Rothmann: Impartial justice.
Bob Zadek: That’s right, impartial justice. How how that has such built-in hypocrisy because everybody there is there because they are elected. The president is elected. There is a political process that created the institutions. It’s all political, and how in the how in the world can anybody be expected to be, let alone 100 senators, quote, “impartial,” when everything about the process is partial?
The Nixon Precedent [08:05]
John Rothmann: Well, let me answer your question. You know that I worked for Richard Nixon. And I want you to understand that the Nixon impeachment never took place because in the end, the Republicans made the decision. Barry Goldwater, John Rhodes, and Hugh Scott went down to the White House on August 7th, 1974, and essentially told the president he did not have the votes to survive. The legal issue of whether the president in fact had committed a high crime or misdemeanor was not debated. The president turned to Barry Goldwater and he said, “Barry, how many votes do I have in the Senate?” And Barry Goldwater, by the way, told me this story himself. And Goldwater said to me that I responded to the president, “You have six votes at most, and I am not one of them.”
So in the end, Richard Nixon resigned because he knew, as he put it in the David Frost interviews, that he had impeached himself. Nixon could not survive because the political support that he had, the Republicans, collapsed completely. And so what we learn is, and it’s an important point quickly, that whether it’s the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, the impeachment which theoretically would have taken place with Richard Nixon, or Bill Clinton, or now Donald Trump, these are political proceedings. And let me remind Bob, let me remind you and all of our listeners, that no president of the United States facing trial in the United States Senate has been convicted and removed from office.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors [10:23]
Bob Zadek: And then the interesting question is, and so Trump will be the first if it goes the route—we still don’t—it probably will, we still don’t know. But what’s so interesting to me is now the issue is this really unfortunate word in the Constitution of “crime.” And there is so much misunderstanding on the core issue: is it essential, is it important as to whether Trump committed a crime that has violated federal or state criminal code?
John Rothmann: And the answer is of course not. Gerald Ford summed it up. He was the House Minority Leader and talked about an impeachment of Justice William O. Douglas. And Jerry Ford was asked a simple question: “What is impeachment?” And he said, “It’s whatever the House of Representatives says it is.” And I think that’s the key. Bob, you can impeach someone if you have the votes, and you can convict someone in the Senate if you have the votes, regardless of the merits.
And the best example of that is Andrew Johnson. The charges against him were fundamentally based on something called the Tenure of Office Act, which was passed by Congress in order to get him. And in the end, Andrew Johnson was saved by one vote, the vote of Edmund Ross of Kansas, and you can read about it in John F. Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage. The important thing is that it is political in every sense of the word. So when you ask me, is a crime necessary, the answer is no. Ask me whether or not I believe that Donald Trump abused his power, showed contempt of Congress. The answer is yes. But it only becomes a crime and a removable-from-office crime if the senators vote that way.
And the argument that Alan Dershowitz will make tomorrow in the United States Senate is that—and by the way, let me be clear, Alan does not say whether or not he considers the action of the president a crime. He simply says it does not rise to the level for which he should be removed from office. And those of you who listen to me on KGO know I have said from the very beginning that the Republicans would make the argument that it did not rise to the level.
And let me give you the precedent for that, and that’s Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton obstructed justice and committed perjury. And we all know the Lewinsky case. But the bottom line was, even though he did something terribly egregious, the Democrats argued it did not rise to the level for which he should be removed from office. And that is what the Republicans are saying. Please note that the defense of the president yesterday, they never denied his actions. They never said he didn’t do it. What they’re going to argue is that it doesn’t rise to the level for which he should be removed from office.
Impeachment as a Vote of No Confidence [14:37]
Bob Zadek: Now, I’m going to pick up on the phrase you’ve used twice in your last comment: “rise to the level.” And I, my observation is that impeachment—well, I will make my observation in the form of a hypothetical. Should a president who is generally—and I’ll use a phrase just ask you to assume the fact—assuming a president is a generally a good president, Bill Clinton is an example of a, in general, a good president, even though I didn’t agree with a lot of what he did, by the standards of what makes a good president, he was a good president. Now, and Clinton did commit a crime. Should impeachment as a matter of good government, should impeachment be used to get rid of a good president who did in fact do an impeachable act?
And hold that answer aside. Should impeachment be used to get rid of a bad president who marginally may or may not have committed an impeachable offense? Putting it more directly, is impeachment—is the valid purpose of impeachment to simply correct a voting error and get rid of a bad president, or is it event-specific? A good president does one bad act, one transgression, one impeachable offense, then it is the duty of the Senate to kick him out. What do you think?
John Rothmann: You know, it’s a great formulation. I worked for Richard Nixon, and I can tell you that in many ways Richard Nixon was an exemplary president in terms of foreign policy, certain aspects of domestic policy. I won’t enumerate all of the things he did positively. But what Richard Nixon did was to break trust. He didn’t tell the truth. He got caught in a lie. And what did Republicans in Congress do? They didn’t condemn his presidency. They condemned the action that he took.
And I want to point something out that most people don’t realize, Bob. Richard Nixon did not order the Watergate break-in. Richard Nixon’s crime was the cover-up. The cover-up is what caught Richard Nixon. And had Nixon remained silent, had he not embarked on a cover-up, he would not have been removed from office.
Bob Zadek: Oh, no question. Exactly right.
John Rothmann: And may I also make the observation—it is not, and this is really important to people, for me anyway—I don’t agree with Donald Trump on his politics on many levels. But that is not a reason to remove Donald Trump from office. And so that becomes the next issue. And that’s what I think Alan Dershowitz will argue tomorrow.
The Parliamentary System Comparison [16:52]
Bob Zadek: Now, you are one of the best and most interesting observers of the political process, both because of your thought process and your life experience and your studies. And I think, I believe that the British system, the parliamentary system of a vote of no confidence, a low-drama event, is simply, “Okay, you blew it. We need somebody else.” That system is so politically healthy, and our system is so politically unhealthy that we are in effect—we as a country struggle sometimes to use the impeachment process as a vote of no confidence.
And the Democrats have, in my opinion, putting aside specifics of this specific trial in the Senate, but the Democrats from the moment they entered office in this last term, they set upon getting rid of the president. They therefore destroyed a lot of their high ground, since they were an impeachment in search of a reason, rather than going along doing their job until they got lucky with the phone call.
John Rothmann: In his interview with David Frost, Richard Nixon said about his enemies, “I gave them the sword and they thrust it into me and twisted it.” That’s what happened with Donald Trump. Donald Trump was in a position to have Republicans’ support on a whole host of issues, and even to a degree some Democrats. But what he did and what he continues to do is to say, “You can’t touch me, and I don’t give a toot what you think.” And when the president says he’s innocent, well, it depends on how you perceive it.
If you listen carefully to the president’s own words and you listen to the arguments made by the Democrats, history is going to judge Donald Trump harshly. He put this country through this by his own arrogance, and I have to tell you, his own lack of understanding of history. And that may be the ultimate tragedy of Donald Trump. If the issues were argued just on the basis of his policies, oh, that would be entirely appropriate. But you’re correct, Bob, when you say this is not that.
One other observation: when Harry Truman became president and there were real questions about whether he had any popular mandate, J. William Fulbright, Senator Fulbright, proposed that we revert to a parliamentary system. And there was a debate in 1946, particularly after the ‘46 election which was a repudiation of Truman, whether Fulbright was right or not. Well, the answer is we are not a parliamentary system, we are not going to become a parliamentary system.
Censure and Its Consequences [19:30]
John Rothmann: And there is one other element, and that has to do with the notion of censure. One president of the United States, Andrew Jackson, was censured by a Senate controlled by the Whigs. He was a Democrat. That censure resolution was expunged as soon as the Democrats took over the United States Senate. So he was censured, which had absolutely no consequence. And there are people who suggest that what should happen now is that after the trial, there should be a censure resolution introduced in the United States Senate. I don’t think that will happen. And I would point out to people that censure really is—is not an effective means or tool.
Bob Zadek: No, censure is not, of course it’s not. Nobody—the country is too cynical to take that censure motion, which has no teeth to it, it’s just a scolding, in when the country is so divided, that scold—and it’s not by the House or the Senate, it’s by the other party. And in the Senate, of course, it’s the president’s party, so a censure would have some significance and it might affect the outcome.
John Rothmann: Republicans aren’t going to vote for a censure. They could get the four senators who are in question: Lamar Alexander, Mitt Romney, Senator Collins of course, and one other. They might get them to vote for a censure resolution, but essentially it would have no impact at all. And I don’t think they’re going to go that route. Nor do I think, by the way, that there will be four Republicans who will vote to hear testimony.
And let me be clear about this: I believe testimony is important, and I believe it would be good to have testimony. I’d like to hear Mick Mulvaney. I’d like to hear Mike Pompeo. I’d like to hear the people closest to the president stand up and say he didn’t do this. But the simple truth is the president did what he is accused of doing. He did. And so the burden on this falls to the question which seems to have been answered by the Republicans: that yes, he did it, but it does not rise to the level for which he should be removed from office. And in the end, Bob, it is the American people who on November 3rd, 2020, will give the ultimate judgment on this president.
The Motivation Behind the Phone Call [22:10]
Bob Zadek: As we go to break, you said the question is in this—or you pointed out there’s no dispute on the facts. And of course you’re right, there is no dispute. But the dispute is as to the phone call. The issue is, what was the president’s reason? So this is like a hate crime, when when we have—which I abhor—when we have federal and state hate crime laws, we try to examine into why somebody committed murder or mayhem or other physical injury or robbery. If they did it for the wrong reason, then their punishment is going to be enhanced. If all they were were hungry or greedy, well, then they only get put away for a lesser term. I abhor that process, and I hate hate crimes, no pun.
But what we have is a—and this is not a criminal trial, but nevertheless, the issue which could, not will, but could decide the outcome is not what the president did, because as John pointed out, we all know what he did, we know what he said. The issue is why he said it. When we come back from break, I will try to take the opposite position that it doesn’t matter why he did what he did.
John Rothmann: And if you do, I will argue with you. I can’t wait.
Bob Zadek: So now you have it, the scene is set. We’re going to go to a really short 30-second break, and then the gladiators enter the ring and we will decide whether it, quote, “matters” as to why Donald Trump may have done what is in my analogy a political hate crime, that is something where the reason you do something indicts you. We’ll be back in 30 short seconds. If you are like me, I bet you can’t wait.
[Sponsor break removed]
Trial vs. Appeal [25:24]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show, the longest-running live libertarian talk radio show in all of radio. We are here every Sunday morning from 8:00 to 9:00 AM. Thank you so much for listening. This morning I am, to use enormous understatement, delighted, proud to welcome to my show John Rothmann. John is the leading radio talk show host in the Bay Area, if not in the country. He has an enormous following, as he deserves. He broadcasts on KGO Radio 810 AM in the Bay Area and streamed as well. John is a published author with many best-selling books, often on the subject of American history and politics, and he has had a rich political past as well, serving in the Nixon and other administrations. So John’s observations and his thoughts in this discussion of impeachment count for a lot more than most other people’s, because as I often say on my show, what people think is to me marginally interesting; why you think it is fascinating. And I love to understand how a thoughtful person reaches a conclusion they have, because I always learn, not from their opinion, but from how they got there.
So John, before the break, we were talking about how much it matters as to what the testimony would disclose. And I said, and you were licking your radio chops, you couldn’t wait as I said, I don’t think it matters all that much. And let me tee up the issue. This part of the conversation is going to have two components. Number one, although everybody uses the somewhat loose analogy that what is going on in the Senate is a trial. And my first question, John, which we can spend just a few seconds on, is okay, since we are using the judicial system for our analogy, is what’s going on in the Senate more analogous to a trial or an appeal?
More specifically, is what happened in the House something akin to an indictment, like a grand jury process where the prosecutor, the Speaker of the House, if you will, or the head of the Judiciary Committee, the prosecutor presents the case to a grand jury, the grand jury says, “We don’t know if a crime was committed, but there’s enough to let a jury decide,” and they send it out to be tried. Is what happened in the House the indictment, or is what happened in the House the trial and this is an appeal, which means in an appeal you don’t take witnesses, you just decide if the trial was proper? What’s the better analogy as to what’s going on in the Senate?
John Rothmann: Well, you know, first of all, the way you frame it is absolutely right on, 100%. One of the reasons Alan Dershowitz is involved is because he doesn’t try cases; he is an appellate lawyer. And I think one of the reasons why the president wanted Alan Dershowitz on the team is for that very reason. Theoretically, theoretically, the House of Representatives acts as a grand jury. They put together the indictment, they come to a conclusion, and then they forward it to the United States Senate. The United States Senate then conducts a trial. And theoretically in a trial—you’re a lawyer, Bob, you know this—you have witnesses and you have evidence. And that’s what makes this not a trial, because the Republicans have determined they don’t want witnesses, they don’t want documentary evidence, documented evidence to be conveyed to them. They say, “You built your case, that’s all we care about, we’re not going to allow new evidence.”
Now, I watched Perry Mason for many years. I loved it. And the one thing I learned is at the last minute, when everything seems predetermined, all of a sudden you hear something new that changes the whole course of the trial. That is not going to happen in the Senate trial. This is not Perry Mason; this is American politics playing out. And there are some who would suggest that impeachment doesn’t work. There’s a wonderful book by a gentleman named Leibovich, who I interviewed on my program, who is in Washington, D.C., in which he says impeachment as a process fails because it’s not a trial, not really. It’s a political action. And I think that is the key.
Hypothetical: Motivation and State Secrets [30:57]
Bob Zadek: Now, the second reason, the second part of the discussion on how much matters as to what Donald Trump’s motivation was. John, I’d like to present a hypothetical to you, only because I would love to hear your mind operating on this hypothetical, and more importantly, as you think out loud, the audience, however you respond, will benefit from the process. My hypothetical is this—and Trump’s—a substantial portion of Trump’s defense of his conversation with Zelensky, the reason it was the “perfect call”—perfect is a low bar, but okay, a perfect call—he said, “I was trying to ferret out corruption in the Ukraine.” Now, I can hear the eyes rolling in the audience and all that. Okay, putting that aside.
My hypothetical is this—and the argument against Trump is he was soliciting the aid of a foreign government to out a political opponent. That’s sort of a summary of what he did wrong in the eyes of those people who think it was impeachable, focusing on that act. My question, John, only to hear the process of you reaching your conclusion: let us assume the following hypothetical—not didn’t happen, hypothetical. Donald Trump believes, rightly or wrongly, or is told by his advisors, that Joe Biden was sharing state secrets with the Ukraine. I mean, as crass as it can be. State secrets. Treason. Punishable by death. And Donald Trump is likely to be running against Joe Biden. And Trump says out loud to anybody within earshot, “Wow, I gotta get to the bottom of this because he’s a possible traitor and I get to get rid of a political opponent. How lucky am I?” He says that and off he goes. Has Trump committed an impeachable offense?
John Rothmann: My answer is the minute you mention Joe Biden’s name, you opened that door which we will see expressed by the president’s defenders. They are going to go after Joe Biden on grounds of corruption. So let’s—let’s really be careful. Joe Biden is not about to be impeached or convicted by the Senate. Joe Biden is not on trial. What is on trial, and you said it I think quite well, is that the president of the United States asked the leader of a foreign nation to investigate a potential political opponent. And the president did that while at the same time holding up aid appropriated by Congress.
Now, I think those facts are indisputable. And now I will offer you what I really believe. This is a political process. If Barack Obama had done that, the Republicans would have called for his immediately being removed from office. Well, of course. Because it is a political process, the lines are not drawn based on fact, on whether or not the president did something wrong. What is clear is that the Republicans are saying—and by the way, the Democrats did the same thing with Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal—“Yes, he did it, but it doesn’t matter.” Which goes back to the very first point, Bob, which is that impeachment by the House and a trial in the Senate is a political, not a legal issue.
The Quid Pro Quo and Witnesses [35:02]
Bob Zadek: Except, except for one thing. Here it is important to many Americans, and certainly to the political class and to the fourth estate, the media, it is important to many of them as to what the motive was. That soliciting the aid of a foreign government to help us ferret out a spy is not only neutral, Trump damn well had better have done that, assuming Biden wasn’t running for office, wasn’t a possible competitor.
John Rothmann: You know, if the president felt that there was something that Biden did, what the president should have done is gone to the Attorney General and had an investigation initiated by the Justice Department, which is the normal process. For a president of the United States to invite the president of a foreign nation who is dependent completely on us to dig up dirt on a political opponent is unconscionable. And let me point out, the president broke the law when he held up the aid in a quid pro quo. And don’t listen to John Rothmann; listen to Mick Mulvaney, who standing in the briefing room at the White House said, “Of course it was a quid pro quo. Get over it.”
Now, why is it that the Republicans don’t want Mick Mulvaney to give testimony? Because if he said that, it would blow the lid off their defense. And if John Bolton testifies, and God knows what John Bolton would say, again it opens up a can of worms. The Republicans want this behind them. And the Republicans made an argument yesterday that was fascinating: “Let the American people decide on November 3rd, 2020.” So I’m going to stick my neck way out, Bob, and tell you this: I believe this trial will be over within a week. I believe the president will be acquitted on a party-line vote, more or less, 53 to 47. There might be a couple of Democrats who vote to defend him who are in tough reelection battles because this is a political issue. In the end, what the Democrats are doing is building a case which they can present to the American people.
Now, listen carefully. The latest polls show that 53% of Americans believe the president should be removed from office. That’s stunning. But I want to point out to you that if that’s true, no American president running in a head-to-head contest has been able to win election without having the support of the American people. And if 53% of the American people believe he did something wrong, he’ll lose the election. He’ll lose the election. And so what Donald Trump has to do now is shore up his base, which is what he did when he spoke at the March for Life—he wants the evangelicals with him. He’s doing the same thing and will on Tuesday when he announces his Middle East peace plan, which the Palestinians and the Arabs will reject, but the Israelis will embrace, because the president is now trying to play a political game of shoring up his base. What about Joe Biden? Joe Biden will, well, certainly be a major contender. He may well be the Democratic nominee. If he is, this will put the president’s contentions about Joe Biden front and center. So I can only tell you when I began by saying this is not a legal process, it is a political process, that is precisely what this is, and the stakes are high: the presidency of the United States.
The Withholding of Aid and the GAO [39:15]
Bob Zadek: Exactly right. And one comment, by the way, you mentioned the withholding of aid. I want to focus on the verb “withholding,” and not belabor it, it’s a small point in our discussion.
John Rothmann: If you want to use the technical term, it is impoundment. Go ahead.
Bob Zadek: But what the point is this: not enough in my opinion has been said about the following issue. The president—money was appropriated by Congress. The president has a duty—the power of the purse is one of the most powerful and most sacred tools that Congress has in the separation of powers. It is very important and always has been and should be. When the president crosses a line and assumes the power of the purse in any way, he has crossed a line for which he should be soundly criticized in some form or another. However, his duty to spend the money, unless otherwise set forth in a statute, he must spend the money before the end of the fiscal year. When Congress appropriates money on a Monday and the president doesn’t spend it until Wednesday, the president doesn’t get impeached. He hasn’t spent it yet. And maybe he withholds it using timing, maybe he withholds it for a reason, maybe a good reason, maybe a crummy reason, but a reason. But so long as he spends the money before the end of the fiscal year, he hasn’t upset the balance of powers.
John Rothmann: Not in this case, Bob, and I want to explain why. The GAO issued a statement saying the president broke the law. That’s a nonpartisan branch of government. But I want to be crystal clear on this: once the whistleblower report became public, the funds were released. And I say this so everyone understands: this was a political action by a president who held up funds to try to get a favor from Ukraine. Once the action was exposed, the money was released. And what’s interesting is none of the people who would be called in a trial are Democrats. All the people who would be called in the trial are Donald Trump appointees to jobs in his administration. If I were the president of the United States and I had nothing to hide, I would say, “Go ahead and testify, because what you’re going to affirm is my position, which is I did nothing wrong.” But that is not what the president and his attorneys are doing. And that I think is the flaw in this question, because if you’re innocent, you should have nothing to hide.
Who Represents the Government? [42:34]
Bob Zadek: I have one governmental question and I want to end our discussion with a political question that I was so impatient within myself to ask you, I couldn’t wait. So the governmental question, the civics question, is in a criminal trial, it is the People versus. It is—there is the government side and the defendant’s side. In the Senate, we have those who want the president impeached and those who oppose the conviction on impeachment—he’s been impeached, conviction. Okay, I’ll use conviction. Now, a quick question, quick answer. In that process, throw him out versus keep him in, which side represents the government? How’s that? Now, and it’s a quick question, quick answer, then I’m going to get to my political question. Who’s the people?
John Rothmann: Neither side is the government, Bob. That’s the whole point. You’re putting it in legal terms; this is a political question. So what you basically have are lines drawn along political lines. The Democrats say he’s guilty, the Republicans say he’s innocent, and that’s it.
Bob Zadek: So therefore neither side is—neither party—I hate to even make reference to parties, although as John has pointed out repeatedly and appropriately, this is a purely political process. But neither side has the high ground. Neither side is more patriotic than the other. There’s no such thing as the patriotic side.
Pelosi’s Strategy and the “Sword” [44:24]
Bob Zadek: Now here’s my political question, because you are such an astute political observer. Bob and I did not talk in advance. This is purely spontaneous in terms of conversation. Here’s the astute political question. Stakes are high. Presidential election is coming up that may, depending on coattails, it may control the Senate as well. The House is probably not going to change, but who knows. My political question: given all that has happened, starting with the whistleblower, did the—and maybe you’ll—and I’m asking for an opinion before the fat lady has sung—in your opinion, as of this second, would the Democrats, if the goal is the White House and perhaps the Senate, have done better by using all that has come out as a tool in the election, or did they blow it, if they did blow it, by using it as an impeachment tool rather than as a weapon in the election which is right around the corner?
John Rothmann: Brilliant question, and Nancy Pelosi gave us the answer. She did not want to have this president impeached by the House. She did not want a trial in the Senate. She wanted everything decided November 3rd. What the president did was to give the Democrats the sword: the Ukraine situation, the conversation. And they thrust it into him, which is precisely the point, Bob. Nancy Pelosi’s political judgment initially was absolutely correct. But events overcame what she could handle. The president did it to himself. And you know, that’s the great tragedy of this moment.
The wonderful thing about opinions is you’re allowed to express any opinion you want and it can’t be wrong. Don’t say that to my wife, Bob. Will history tell us, will history tell us that that was a monumental political blunder, that using what happened as impeachment was a monumental, do you think, political blunder, or was it really high-level, skillful, and correct politics? I’m asking a purely political tactical question.
John Rothmann: The blunder was Donald Trump’s. The response was not a blunder by the Democrats; it was a necessary action. And Bob, you and I will make a date two years from now, even a year from now, and we will know whether or not this president played his cards properly or whether or not he was fully vindicated. All of that will be resolved if not by a vote in the next week in the United States Senate, it will be resolved by the American people. And let me tell you, there’s enough blame in all of this to go around for everyone. The ultimate tragedy is that we have had to go through this.
And frankly, I felt the same way about Watergate. If Nixon had not taken actions that he took to cover up, we never would have gone through that agony. And to be honest with you, if Donald Trump had not had that conversation and not held up that aid, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. In the end, I have a hope. And the hope is that this will be good for American democracy, that this issue will be debated as you and I are talking about it now in the days and years ahead by students of politics, by students in high school and junior high school, middle school, so they can understand better the process with all of its imperfections and its pros and cons.
History of Impeachment and the Future [48:46]
Bob Zadek: Did the founders, do you think, because you are an astute historian, you know how to teach us the lessons from the past, did the founders intend that impeachment be as rare and unusual as it has become—only been in the uttered about three times in American history—or did the founders intend that impeachment be somewhat more commonplace and be invoked a lot to keep the president on his or her toes? And I’ll ask a short—should impeachment be an easy process or hard?
John Rothmann: You make a presumption that I want to answer. Remember that there have been 15 impeachments in the Senate. They haven’t had to do with presidents primarily, but with judges. Impeachment was a process by which the view was that you could correct the imperfections. Your correct premise is it is used rarely and only when there is really no alternative. And let me remind you, Judge Hastings, who was impeached and removed from office, is now a sitting member of Congress.
Bob Zadek: That’s correct, from Florida. And the first judge to be—the first judge to be impeached was impeached because he was—he was abusive to litigants and a drunkard and was just a loser. And he did nothing wrong. They just said he’s a terrible judge, get rid of the son of a gun, and they kicked him out. And that was perfectly appropriate in 1803, 1804.
John Rothmann: And remember Samuel Chase, Justice of the Supreme Court in 1805, went through the impeachment process. Aaron Burr presided at his trial. The whole thing was political. Thomas Jefferson wanted him removed from office, and that was the whole issue. And he wasn’t, by the way. So you know, it’s all fascinating.
Bob Zadek: Should impeachment—we’re running out of time, quick question, quick answer—should impeachment be easy or hard, the way it has been in our history, of the president?
John Rothmann: Hard.
Bob Zadek: Should it be easier?
John Rothmann: No. But I’ll tell you what I think: it should be fairer. That is to say, if a president really is guilty, it should be a nonpartisan effort. In a perfect world, Bob, this president would be removed from office. But it’s not a perfect world; it’s a political world, and that of course is the world of Washington, D.C.
Bob Zadek: To my friends out there, I ask you to ask yourselves: should a president be impeached because he’s a crummy president but really did nothing overt, or should he be impeached only if he did a clearly impeachable offense? What is better for our country? John, thank you so much. My hopes have been more than vindicated. This was a delightful hour, John. Thank you so much for giving us an hour of your weekend time. On behalf of my listeners and my friends out there, we sure do appreciate it.
John Rothmann: Thank you, Bob. Always a pleasure.
Bob Zadek: And this is Bob Zadek saying so long for now, so long to my friends. I’ll be back again next Sunday. Please enjoy the rest of the weekend.