Settling the impeachment question once and for all

Back during the Bill Clinton impeachment I was trying to cut through all the noise of whether what Clinton did was actually an impeachable offense. While everyone was debating it on television I actually went to the Department of Justice sentencing guidelines and looked it up. I knew that treason and bribery were specifically listed in the Constitution as impeachable offenses. It made sense to me that if perjury or suborning perjury were more serious than either of those then Clinton could be convicted. They both were. Bribery is a base offense level 8 in the sentencing guidelines. Perjury or subornation of perjury is a base offense level 14.

After pounding this on the air for several weeks I got a late-night phone call at home from then-Congressman Lindsey Graham. He was one of the House Managers charged with prosecuting Bill Clinton in the senate trial. He had heard about my theory and invited me to fly to Washington to address the House Managers. I did, and I explained that one only need look at what the Constitution specifically says is impeachable and then compare that with the Department of Justice Sentencing Guidelines to see if they have a case.

Despite the obvious, they assigned one of the lawyers assisting in the case to study it. By this point the impeachment trial had started. I had a ringside seat in the Marble Room of the Senate as this drama played out. I got a call the night before what would turn out to be the last day. It was the House lawyer and a Florida congressman on a conference call. This was several days after I’d made my pitch to the House Managers. The lawyer announced with some surprise that I was right. The congressman on the phone said he’d be making the point on the Senate floor the following day. 

I watched the next morning with great anticipation. This stood to be a historic moment. The congressman was given the floor and launched into some flowery pronouncement about the geese landing on the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and the journey that had taken them to this moment. Before I knew it, he had droned on so long that his time had expired and he never made the point about the sentencing guidelines. Senator Trent Lott appeared in the Marble Room to announce to the House Managers that the trial was over. The Senate voted and, as you know, they fell short of the votes needed to convict.

Why do I tell you all of this now? Because the very same logic can be used to determine if anything President Trump has done is an impeachable offense. The lowest rung in the Constitution is bribery. As you now know, bribery has a base offense level of 8. What we’re hearing from the left is Mueller is going to charge the president with obstruction of justice. What exactly is that? Sentencing guidelines aren’t clear. Most suggest that obstruction is an aggravating circumstance to another crime. In other words, if you bribe someone then obstruct the investigation the guidelines say you should add another 2 levels. The best I can tell, obstruction of justice by itself is a base offense level 3.

Logic would dictate that there has to be an underlying crime for the president to even commit obstruction of justice. Since there’s no indication that he’s obstructing an investigation into his own crimes then the highest level for his obstruction would be a 3. That falls far short of an impeachable offense. But don’t tell the Never Trumpers.

Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, The Phil Valentine Show.

What is a statesman?

What is a statesman?  It’s a rather subjective question.  It depends on who you ask.  I’ve seen lists.  Some are compiled by historians, some are gathered from polls.  Here are some names that seem to pop up over and over.  Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill, even Al Gore.  What is the one thing that threads all of these names together?  They were all deeply divisive and partisan.

The John McCain’s of the world today seem to think that statesmen are molded through compromise and bipartisanship.  The fact is a true statesman stands for something, whether it’s popular at the time or not.  A true statesman sticks to his or her guns.  They are unwavering in their dedication to their cause.  They are unapologetic for their stand.  Whether you agree with them or not you always – and I mean always – know where they stand.  There’s no shifting sand under their feet.  There’s no hint of compromise on basic, bedrock principles.  They stand for something and they stand firm.

Today’s politicians believe if they can just get invited to the next cocktail party held by a prominent member of the other party they’ll be regarded as a statesman.  What they don’t realize is no one at the

party thinks better of them just because they’ve extended a hand across the aisle.  Moving to the middle is behavior of someone who wants to be liked, not someone who wants to be right.  There’s nothing in the middle of the road but road kill.  No one respects a capitulator, least of all the one to whom he has capitulated. 

The tea party movement is full of uncompromising people who long for a country that hasn’t forgotten its roots.  They read the Constitution as almost a sacred text, an inspired agreement between our original states that lays out the boundaries of government.  These boundaries were long ago breached by those who deemed the population too simple-minded to possibly take care of itself.

People like John McCain hold the tea party movement in contempt.  He believes the “rancor,” a word McCain is so fond of using, is destructive to our nation.  He believes that those who will not go along to get along are obstructionists who stand in the way of duly elected majorities.  He fails to understand the role of the loyal opposition to constantly push back against things with which they disagree.  Nor does he realize that the very reason he was invited to the White House to talk compromise with the president was because of the tea party, not in spite of it.  Had people like Ted Cruz – a true statesman – not fought back against the establishment the rubber stamp RINO Republicans like McCain would’ve have stepped aside to allow the Democrat steamroller to do its thing.

John Boehner in the House is hardly any better.  Sure, he has surprised some by his steadfast position in the sequester fight and later the budget fight but Boehner has been operating from a position of fear.  He doesn’t consider himself part of the tea party movement.  Any chance given to talk about it he refers to it as “them” and “they.”  He simply found himself in a position where the more conservative factions of his caucus could possibly drum him out as speaker had he not listened to reason.

At the end of the day there is nothing noble in foisting more debt and socialized medicine on the American people nor is it any nobler to have put up a good fight only to cave in the end.

Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, The Phil Valentine Show.