Continued discussion on impeachment inquiry
You asked in your letter of 10/21, “What about the legal precedence set in the previous impeachment inquiries?” I am not exactly sure what specific precedence you refer to. My best guess is that you are referring to the fact that in the cases of both Presidents Nixon and Clinton, a Special Prosecutor – equivalent to a Special Counsel, like Mueller – was appointed to do the primary investigating. These special counsels must be appointed by the Attorney General; it does not seem likely that Attorney General Barr will follow suit. That leaves the task to House committees — and they are doing it.
Let me add to that what is clear to me:
The current impeachment inquiry is following the procedural steps as laid out in the Constitution – they are not identical to those in a court of law. The House acts somewhat like a prosecutor, filing charges – in place of a Special Counsel, as noted above, and also in private, as with previous investigations. The Mueller report, itself, is not useful here since there is as yet no overlap between what Mueller investigated and the issues now being investigated by the House committees.
In both Nixon’s and Clinton’s cases, a full vote on the articles of impeachment did not come until quite late – nearly three months after the Clinton impeachment inquiry was launched and more than four years after Kenneth Starr was appointed Special Counsel on the Whitewater investigation that later led to uncovering the Monica Lewinsky scandal and impeachment.
The President will be able to mount a defense if a trial happens – in the Senate – as Clinton did. Nixon was never impeached but would have been able to do the same had he not resigned first.
Because these proceedings are exactly as allowed by the Constitution I see no basis for your complaint that they are not following precedent.
Finally, I disagree with your characterization of the Trump-Zelensky conversation as “innocuous” – and so does more than half the country according to recent polls. As important, there are Congressional Republicans, Cabinet members, numerous diplomats and White House staff members who found this call as “alarming” well before we learned of it. Moreover, Mick Mulvaney, has over the past few days characterized that call in a way most unfortunate for the President, and it is not only Democrats that think so.
Paul Mack
Columbus
A letter to the editor is an excellent way to participate in your community. We request the tone of your letters be constructive and respectful and the length be limited to 450 words. We welcome all letters emailed to [email protected] or mailed to The Dispatch, Attn: Letters to the Editor, PO Box 511, Columbus, MS 39703-0511.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 41 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.