Speaker 0 00:00 It's episode three of an incomplete history. Today we'll be discussing impeachment. Additionally, we'll talk about how do you teach difficult, sometimes politically charged topics in the classroom. Join us today on an incomplete history. Hello and welcome to an incomplete history. I'm Hillary and I'm Jeff
Speaker 3 00:40 for this weekly history podcast.
Speaker 0 00:42 Well, so, uh, last week we had a little reprieve. We talked about witches and that's not very controversial anymore, I guess. Uh, this week, however, we're back to controversial topics. We're going to be talking about impeachment today. What do you think of that, that Hillary,
Speaker 3 00:59 well, I told you I was excited about this episode because I love being able to talk about things that are relevant to right now, especially in the classroom. And I told you I've been covering the 1790s a couple of weeks back in class and I just kept seeing so many overlapping things. So I was excited to get into a discussion about the historical aspects of impeachment and what the kind of the mindset was for the framers at that moment.
Speaker 0 01:28 Right? I mean it's, it's, we kind of made a decision when we decided to do this podcast. We are going to shy away from controversial topics. Right. And we're gonna kind of approached them asking hard questions.
Speaker 3 01:40 Well I think that we're confronting them head on but not with our own opinions on it, but just kind of giving contextual historical basis for them. Is that fair?
Speaker 0 01:52 Right, right. Definitely. I mean yeah, there's the whole thing. If you want my opinion on current events, give me a beer and we can sit down and discuss that. But I mean this is, we are giving context, right? I mean what we wanna do here is provide context for the impeachment discussion. Uh, cause I hear bad information given out by multiple parties right now about what, what the country's relationship with impeachment has been, how it is or isn't in the constitution. What's clarified. I have heard of lot of bad information out there and hopefully our little podcast can do its part to kind of dispel some of that and like talk about, no, here's actually what's in the constitution. Here's what's happened in the past. Yes.
Speaker 3 02:41 Think that's exciting. So we didn't even have any small talk. We just jumped right in.
Speaker 0 02:46 Well, I, I have a sneaking suspicion this conversation is going to go pretty long. I mean, but I mean I, I do want to know how you doing. You said you were a little chilly there.
Speaker 3 02:56 Yeah. So I've been complaining all last week about how hot it and then all of a sudden it got cold and I don't really know what to do with myself and shivering. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I don't want this to be like a weather podcast, but man, there's always some sort of weather situation occurring here in Mississippi. So.
Speaker 0 03:14 Well, but I mean in the future when historians discover our podcast and wondering what the hell is this? Um, I mean, don't you like it when you find historical sources and they have like notes about the weather or something?
Speaker 3 03:29 If it's relevant? I think <inaudible>
Speaker 0 03:31 I like it when it's irrelevant. I think it's so, it just gets such an interesting window into what's going on. I mean, especially the words they use to describe weather and stuff, like a fresh shit.
Speaker 3 03:43 <inaudible> well, it's a fresh shot right now. It's 44 degrees. So
Speaker 0 03:47 is it raining? Well then it's not, or for shat, right? I don't know what a fresh shot is. It's like it's some kind of rain sounds Chile. Well it does, but I think it's some kind of rain thing. Well, maybe we'll have an episode. We're talking about colonial weather or something. Um, anyway, so let's, let's talk about impeachment. So let's, let's talk about how it gets in the constitution first.
Speaker 3 04:14 Well, I covered a little bit about this in my class, but I'm kind of figuring into a more deep dive of what we're talking about here is it comes as a part of the constitution when they are, you know, reframing how they want the country to look. Right? So in the wake of the articles of Confederation, these loosely based, um, state entities, they, they want a stronger federal government, but what they are so afraid of, so afraid of is monarchy. They're afraid of aristocracy. They really want to get away from that. Um, and so the way that they frame it so they feel better, I guess about, um, instilling somebody in an executive branch is to split the branches of government. Right? And this is like social science one Oh one. This is something we learned from the time we were young in schools about the three separate branches of government.
Speaker 3 05:11 And where it stems from is in this moment of true fear over turning into something like a monarchy where there's some person who's in Supreme power and that power is, goes unchecked. So there's a debate that starts to happen and they decide in article two, section four, that there should be an impeachment clause and they settle on the language of treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors. And we hear this discussion of high crimes and misdemeanors all the time. And what does that mean? Is this kind of what we'll get into a little bit today? But there was, um, there was a debate at the time over, should it be called high crimes and misdemeanors or should we call it maladministration? So Madison fights against that, right? Like, we're not <inaudible>
Speaker 0 06:09 masons, masons involved in it too, right? James Bass.
Speaker 3 06:12 Yeah. But Madison's the one who goes forth and says, we need an impeachment clause because it's a Rufus King who saying, no, we do not need an impeachment clause in the constitution because the potential for somebody taking over government or abusing power, um, that will be checked by the people themselves every four years. So Rufus King argues, we don't actually need this because elections themselves will decide whether or not somebody is going to stay in office. And Madison really, really comes out against us and says, no, the country could be ruined within a year. We can't have that in. We can't leave that to chance. There needs to be a system in place where we can try the executive for what they end up settling on the language of treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. And so the debate over just what language should be used is one part of it. But then also whether or not the other branches of government should be even responsible for checking.
Speaker 0 07:28 I mean, Rufus Griffis King asset, great thing. He says where he says what the executive would be periodically tried for his behavior by his electors.
Speaker 3 07:37 Right, right. And that's the whole idea is like, well no, we're trying to make a democracy and so that should go back. Like the power should go to the people that decide that. But I mean this isn't even the age or history, right? Yeah, it does. It goes all the way back to British constitutional history and this language, this late language of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was a well understood terminology to people in that era because this goes back to 14th century parliamentary rule,
Speaker 0 08:12 right? So is that way is that way we don't have a definition of the constitution because everybody just said, well we don't need to define this. We all know what this means.
Speaker 3 08:21 Yeah, I would say for sure because it's something that they had that they had been well aware of because it's so a part of British parliamentary law and they were using it in British parliament to hold the King's ministers accountable for their public behavior. And that, that was kind of the idea is like people who are representing the public should behave in a certain way. And if we feel they're not, we have the power to admonish them. And what's important about this and what's important in this discussion of impeachment is a political act. It is to slap somebody on the hand for not acting right. It's not about breaking the law though. It's not mutually exclusive, right. Somebody who is breaking the law could be impeached. Um, it, but it's not, it's not steeped in a legal sense. It's more about, uh, again being upset with somebody who's not acting right as a public servant.
Speaker 0 09:26 Right? So Alexander Hamilton, uh, he's a Federalist and the Federalist papers are love to go back to the Federalist papers. I think there is such a great window into kind of political discourse and as you get this group that's really trying to convince ratification of the constitution, uh, groups to ratify it. Um, the interesting thing kind of researching as we got into this episode, if you'd asked me before I researched whether I thought Hamilton was for or against impeachment, I would have said against
Speaker 3 10:04 Mmm. Y what about you? I don't know for I would, I would say four because he is a Federalist and he is in favor of a strong central federal government. And I would say one of the strengths of the government is the ability to have checks and balances where an anti Federalist is more about like sending that over to the people or the States or something along those.
Speaker 0 10:27 Right. But I don't, yeah, I guess you're right. I mean once I read it I was like, Oh, this makes sense. I just, I would have assumed the anti Federalist would have been much more in support of okay, we've got to have this constitution in this big government. Fine, let's put some stock, some safety measures into it. So if we get some, a leader who aspires to be a desperate, we can get them out.
Speaker 3 10:54 Well, at the end of the day, you have bipartisan support on this,
Speaker 0 10:58 right? Right. I mean it's an interesting thing. Yeah. I mean, so the constitution, it says the president, vice president and others and all civil officers in the United States. So the interesting thing with that, and we can talk about this a little bit when we talk about how impeachments playing out, this includes judges.
Speaker 3 11:19 Yeah. Well that's actually who's historically been impeached that judges have more so been impeached because presidents have gone through an impeachment process, but it's never actually gone through the full process. Right. Or being confirmed in the Senate. But judges have and, and it makes sense, a lot of sense with judges cause we're talking a lifetime appointment. Right? And so judges have impeached.
Speaker 0 11:48 I mean, it's interesting. So theoretically a Supreme court justice could be impeached, theoretically, theoretically. I know, right? We've, yeah, that's the thing is we've seen a lot of federal judges. Um, I mean that's the thing is there's only a handful of presidents who faced impeachment or even the prospect of impeachment. But there's a lot of other officials, particularly judges, right? Um, let's, well, when they're tired
Speaker 3 12:16 really quickly though, when they're talking about when they're having a debate over this, right? The Federalist papers allow for an extension of the debate, so to speak. And you get several moments in the Federalist papers where they're discussing what is the importance of maintaining a level of honesty, I suppose, amongst the executive branch. And they are trying to instill these protections. And when you get, when you get really down into the nitty gritty of a discussion about why they think that this is important, it's about maintaining a sense of honor, civility and honesty in government. And Federalist 65, they go into this a little bit. Um, and it's, it's about the abuse of the public, right? So like violation of public trust. This is, this is an impeachable offense to violate the public's trust. And so again, this has nothing to do with necessarily breaking the law, but it has more to do with just abuse of power.
Speaker 3 13:28 And these, this mindset is so important to understand in the late 18th century because they are fearful again of aristocracy. They're fearful of monarchy as an extension of this. They are also afraid of foreign interference in their new government. And so a lot of the debate and the questioning over impeachment and about the abuse of public trust oftentimes boils down to, um, uh, communication with or help from foreign powers because you have to remember how if this nascent moment in history of the United States is history, it's incredibly fragile and they are afraid of interference of other larger powers. Um, and they're afraid of the corruption of their elected officials as a result of that. And they're afraid of, um, you know, just this incredibly fragile system that it's going to be disrupted. And so they want to be able to put these in place. Right?
Speaker 0 14:43 So article one, section two says, the house of representatives, Sal choose C. H. U. S. E. I love that. Um, their speaker and other officers and shall have the sole power of impeachment. And then article one, section three goes on the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. And it clarifies when the president United States has tried the chief justice shall provide preside and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. Is the constitution pretty clear about who prosecutes impeachment and who tries impeachment and what has to happen for it to actually stick?
Speaker 3 15:25 Well, I think what you just laid out, it makes it sound really clear in policy, but in practice it gets a little muddier. Right. Okay.
Speaker 0 15:33 Well, and I think that's the thing is it's, it's something we use so rarely that I think people forget that language of the constitution is fairly straight forward about it. There's a lot of things I think we wish it would define a little more carefully, but look, if you're looking for deep definitions of words, don't look to the constitution, right?
Speaker 3 15:53 No. And they're, they're intentional about that in one word. Yeah. Well look, the debate is about right is they wanted to have maladministration and Madison says, no, that's too vague. And so they settle on high crimes and misdemeanors because they find that to not be vague. And, and again that goes back to this was just common, uh, vernacular basically. And to us it sounds incredibly foreign, but to them it's not because they were used to this parliamentary system and there were people who were officials accused of high crimes and misdemeanors who are accused of offenses that varied from misappropriation of government funds. Um, not, not spending money properly allocated by parliament, promoting themselves ahead of other candidates. I mean, there was all kinds of things that people in parliament or admonished for and it was certain behaviors. So I think they thought they were being pretty clear with their language. Um, but to us it seems, it seems up twos.
Speaker 0 17:05 I mean it does, but it doesn't, I mean it's, it's, can the president be tried for impeachment? Yes. I mean it says the president can, right, right. Who, I mean, who prosecutes it? The house of representatives who tries it, the Senate
Speaker 3 17:22 is, are people even debating that part of it? I don't know. I mean it's,
Speaker 0 17:27 I don't know. I mean, a lot of people I hear kind of journalists and commentators kind of talking as discussing impeachment today. Uh, they, they want to find wiggle room and things and you know, I think there's wiggle room on well, what is high crimes and misdemeanors mean? Um, what exactly, you know, what's the process? The, I mean, the process is spelled out at all. Um, it's just the house prosecutes the Senate kind of tries it with the chief justice sitting over everything. Um, I find it interesting, article one, section three, part seven. Um, it says the only, the most you can do though for impeachment is remove somebody from office and disqualify them from holding an enjoining office of honor, trust, or profit. Again. Um, so I mean, worst case scenarios, I mean, say you had a, a president who just kind of invited a foreign military and, um, to take over our country or something.
Speaker 0 18:36 The Senate could not constitutionally try and convict that president through impeachment and then convict that president too. Anything worse than just removing the president from office. Which I find interesting. And I think it plays back to your comment about this is political, right? I mean, the impeachment process is a political process. It's not illegal. It doesn't say that after impeachment that the person who was impeached completely free from legal. Oh no, it says they can be liable in subjects, indictment, trial judgment, punishment according to law, but it's, the Senate is not going to do it as part of impeachment. Right. Um, so something else I found out this week. I mean, it's interesting. There's a lot I found out reading about this. I thought I had read a lot about impeachment, but there's a lot I didn't know. I mean, who's the first person where there's an, uh, an impeachment attempt?
Speaker 0 19:35 The first president, do you know this? But there's an attempted impeachment, was it Adams? Um, no, no. John Tyler, 1843. Oh, okay. So William Henry Harrison died suddenly, um, April 18, 41, like a month after he was, uh, sworn in as president United States, and Tyler becomes the first vice president to become president because the president died. And the impeachment proceeding is put out there. Um, basically because they're saying, you're not really the president, you're just kind of holding, you're keeping the seat warm so we can actually get another president. You need to step down so we can get a new president. Now they also disagreed on some stuff. Um, the people who, the kind of representatives who supported the articles impeachment, um, or kind of starting impeachment said that Tyler didn't understand what was going on on the West. Um, and he was kind of undermining some of Harrison's campaign promises.
Speaker 0 20:49 Um, and Tyler exercised the veto a few times, um, especially with the bank bill. And that's when they kind of move forward to try to impeach him. And it's funny, so the, the articles of impeachment or the impeachment requests gets put in. Um, they want a resolution requesting, uh, he resigned from office. Um, and that if he doesn't, then pray that he may be impeached on the grounds of his ignorance of the interest in Paula, true policy, the government and want of qualification for the discharge of important duties of the president United States. So, you know, it gets dismissed relative really rapidly. Um, and I think it's pretty clear. I mean it's, you know, other people in the house recognized, you know, this doesn't meet the constitution definition.
Speaker 3 21:42 Well Andy in the 19th century, from my understanding of it is it is a really a political act. It's, it's a political admonishment of we don't like the way you were behaving. Right. And it doesn't really shake out to anything that is treasonous or misdemeanor high crimes, whatever. Right? Like none of the things really shake out to that. And it more is just a, we're checking you because we don't like the way you're acting. I mean even arguably Johnson's the worst president. Right.
Speaker 0 22:13 Well let's talk about Johnson cause he's won. I think he, he's a real good example of what you're talking about.
Speaker 3 22:19 Yeah. Which is surely a political act. So go ahead and cover Johnson.
Speaker 0 22:24 Well. So Andrew Johnson, um, much like Tyler becomes president because the president dies for Tyler was William, Harry Henry Harrison and for Johnson it's Abraham Lincoln is assassinated. And Johnson was an interesting choice for vice president because he was from Tennessee. And, and remember that presidential election takes place in the civil war. He's trying to break Deering
Speaker 3 22:52 right. <inaudible> really interested in bridging the gap and, and wanting to bring in somebody from the South to try to help. I mean, even though he's one of the senators who doesn't side with secessionists. Right,
Speaker 0 23:06 right, right. I mean that's the interesting thing as Johnson is able to kind of participate in governance so quickly cause he wasn't a succession list and when Tennessee's Tennessee's brought back into the union, he's able to become their Senator or he's able to become a political agent kind of again because of that status. Um, so he becomes vice president from Lincoln and Lincoln. It gets into a whole other thing that I think is outside kind of the purview of this episode. But Lincoln, it seems had a certain vision for reconstruction and there were other elements of the Republican party, which was still a very young party at this point that disagreed fundamentally with Lincoln. Now remember Lincoln as a Republican, but the radical Republicans as we call them now really wanted to punish the South. Right?
Speaker 3 24:05 Right. They wanted radical reconstruction like fattiest Stevens, you know, was very much in favor of an occupation of the South and Lincoln wasn't there.
Speaker 0 24:16 So Lincoln dissolution them somewhat when he picks Johnson cause Johnson's a union Democrat. Right. Um, and the interesting thing is this is ultimately Johnson gets in trouble cause because Congress passes this thing called the tenure of office act and then Eve and then Johnson vetoes that the house and the Senate override it and then they actually issue articles of impeachment against Johnson because he violates the tenure of office act, which was Stanton. Right? He fired Stanton as his secretary of war. And I find that really interesting because it's so political, right? It's being pushed by radical Republicans. It's so political. I mean does Johnson commit high crimes and misdemeanors?
Speaker 3 25:08 Well no, I mean, and I think that that's the whole, the whole point is like, it is being used at this point as a political tool.
Speaker 0 25:16 Here's the thing. So impeach one air query happens. February 25th, 1868. Um, the house tells the Senate, Hey, yesterday evening we voted 126 to 47 new peach Johnson and they sent it to the Senate, um, and through March, April and may, you know, it's tried in the Senate. So chief justice salmon, P chase presides, um, and John said, appears chooses not to appear at trial. Um, and F, you know, through March, April, and to the end of may, this trial proceeds and eventually, uh, the Senate acquits him of everything. Right? And may 26, 1868, I mean, the Senator quits Johnson and adjourns impeachment now is Johnson and Peached.
Speaker 3 26:19 So this is an important distinction. Yes, he's impeached by the house, but there's two parts of this process that need to play out in order for removal to take place. You can be impeached, but that doesn't mean that you've been removed.
Speaker 0 26:37 Let's talk about the guy, you know, I really want to talk about, um, cause I'm fascinated by it as a little boy. I remember my parents watching, um, Richard Dixon's the kind of the Senate's investigation into Richard Dixon and I was just fascinated by it. And you know, it's, I love the story of it. It's so complicated. Um, and I think it's useful to kind of discuss Nixon because again, most people misunderstand why Nixon leaves office. Now people know he resigns. But I think people make, Nixon was right, right? He's not impeached at all. W you know, I'll kind of talk about that in a minute. He's not impeached at all. It looks like impeachments gonna happen. Um, but it doesn't happen before he resigns. So, I mean, Nixon, I think what's really important is to understand what Nixon is this. So, uh, Richard Nixon's a complicated guy. Um, it was Quaker.
Speaker 0 27:47 Um, he came from kind of a modest background in Yorba Linda, California, Southern co, kind of Southern California, but not kind of a super swanky part of Southern California. Uh, he was Dwight Eisenhower's vice president through the 50s, and in 1960 he runs against John F. Kennedy. And something interesting is Nixon and Kennedy were both junior senators at the same time. They both entered the Senate at the same time and they knew each other. And Nixon, I'm not the most attractive guy. Uh, Kennedy was very kind of photogenic. Uh, it is the closest presidential election. Popular vote wise. Um, Nixon loses to Kennedy by 120,000 popular votes, but the electoral margins much larger, but a 120,000 votes is all that separated the two of them. Now I know some people are going to say, yeah, but 2016 I'm talking in the past, I'm not talking about 2016 and stuff like that.
Speaker 0 28:54 120,000 votes. It's the closest, right? No other presidential election in modern, the modern era has been decided with that little difference in popular vote, which I think is really interesting. Um, and you know, some people who've done biographies of Nixon say this puts a chip on his shoulder and this may play out later. So in 1968, he gets elected president, uh, Dwight Dwight, uh, Lyndon Johnson famously announces he's not gonna run for reelection. Uh, Nixon sees us as an opportunity. He runs for president, gets elected, really solid win. Um, and in 72, he runs for re-election. Uh, overwhelming win. But in that interim, um, and it might be interesting to mention this, that 72 election, it's the largest plurality of votes in American history and of everybody who voted for Nixon today, if you ask, well, that's the, that's the joke, right? It's like who voted for Nixon.
Speaker 0 30:06 I didn't vote for it, but it's the largest, it's the largest plurality in history. So already though, there were things going on. So June 17th, 1972, um, back the summer before the election in November of that year, uh, there were a group of men arrested at 2:30 AM 2:30 AM at the Watergate building complex, uh, at the democratic national committee offices. And these men were in possession of things like walkie talkies, wire devices. They S they had burgled their way into the office. And over that summer, um, it's really two Washington post reporters who kind of pick this up and they carry it for a long time. Um, Woodward and Bernstein, right. And Woodward, um, starts to kind of draw connections here. And I have to say this, that I don't show movies often in the classroom, but to get this like investigation part down, I have my students watch all the president's men, which is made pretty close to when this happens only a few years after all this happens.
Speaker 0 31:19 And it's a really good example. It's a really good narrative of what happens in and who does what. But eventually Nixon and kind of close advisors try to cover up their connection with these men who would have broken in. And it's the cover up that becomes the problem. Um, in July of 73, so this is after Nixon's been elected for a second term, uh, Alexander Butterfield. Um, he's the presidential appointments secretary reveals that all conversations and telephone calls in the office had been taped since 71. Uh, so immediately the Senate Watergate committee says, um, we need to see these tapes. We need to listen to them and Nixon refuses to turn them over. And this kind of creates a presidential, it starts to create a presidential constitutional crisis. October 20th is this famous Saturday night massacre. Um, so this new prosecutor, Archibald Cox special independent special prosecutor had been brought in and brought in by the DOJ and Nixon orders Elliot Richardson and then Ruckelshaus both, uh, officials of the DOJ to fire him. They both refused and resigned. And finally, Robert Bork, who comes up later in us history during the Reagan administration, he considers resigning but ultimately carries out the order. Um, and Leon Jaworski is appointed the new special prosecutor. So
Speaker 0 32:55 now things start to move quickly. Um, eventually, uh, indictments are issued against some presidential AIDS. Um, special prosecutor Jaworski. And remember, this is the one who had been pointed after Cox who was seen as such a problem, has been fired a Jaworski in April 6th, April 16, 1974 and you can kind of see how long this process takes, right? I mean, we're two years after the break in, um, Jaworski, uh, requests the tapes, 64 of them and the white house gives transcripts, but they're edited. And the house judiciary committee at this point says, no, we need the actual tapes. Um, so May 9th, 1974 impeachment hearings began before the house judiciary committee. Um, July 15th, just a month later, Woodward and Bernstein's book, all the president's men comes out. And then finally, July of that year, July 24th, 1974, the United States versus Nixon is decided. So this is Nixon versus Congress basically. Do they have the right to make Nixon turn over these tapes? And Nixon is ordered to give up the tapes. Now, evidently there was a moment after the Supreme court ruled where people didn't know, what do we do if Nixon just ignores the Supreme court?
Speaker 3 34:30 This is relevant to right now, right?
Speaker 0 34:33 I think it is. And I think a lot of people held there.
Speaker 3 34:37 Well, and that's, I keep hearing people say constitutional crisis, constitutional crisis, and I think that this is what they're referring to. So when in the Nixon era, we didn't have to worry about this because Nixon resigned. So that's what's important to take away from this is like the impeachment proceedings didn't even need to come to completion because I leaves office. What's happening right now is not similar in the sense that we're not seeing cooperation on behalf of the executive branch for this investigation. And there's no sign whatsoever that there's going to be a resignation. And so that's why I keep hearing this phrase of constitutional crisis. And it never came to that with Nixon, although there was fear of it. But he <inaudible>
Speaker 0 35:25 well, I mean, so the house, the house judiciary committee does pass articles or impeachment to send to the broader house of representatives to vote on. And this is at the end of July <inaudible> 1974, um, and in August, kind of before the house can kind of move on that right. The beginning of August, um, several Republican senators contact Nixon and say, look, there are enough votes to impeach you. Like if this thing comes to the Senate, you're going to be impeached. So Nixon, August 8th, 1974 resigns. Um, and then August 9th, Gerald Ford becomes president and then September 8th, less than a month later for gives Nixon apart. And you know, it's, we kind of move on from bat. I mean, there's repercussions here. There's a privacy art of 74 and some other things that come out of this. But you know, Nixon was not impeached. The house never voted on impeachment. The Senate was never given an impeachment recommendation by the house that they needed to try, unlike bill Clinton.
Speaker 3 36:41 Right, right. Who wasn't Peached
Speaker 0 36:43 he wasn't impeached. Right. So bill Clinton was impeached and it's mainly came down to him lying. Right,
Speaker 3 36:52 right. Well, but see, again, to be clear, he was impeached in the house, but it doesn't make it through the Senate. Right. There's no president who's ever been impeached and gone through the entire process of being impeached and removed. Um, so that's important. Like square, where we have a podcast today to talk about something that's never actually half entered. Well, that's the thing. And I says, and I think people think it's happened, right? I think, I think when they hear impeach, they think removed from office. Yeah. And that's an ear that's not, I mean you can be impeached but not removed. Right,
Speaker 0 37:25 right. And they don't understand that Johnson just fails to be reelected, that, you know, Nixon resigns
Speaker 3 37:33 and then Clinton couldn't get reelected. Yeah. Clinton's term expires.
Speaker 0 37:38 Um, so we are kind of in an a charter.
Speaker 3 37:41 We're in uncharted territory. Absolutely.
Speaker 0 37:45 So, I mean, I think this is important to talk about. The constitution kind of has some guidelines and where we'd like there to be a little more specific language, but it doesn't exist, you know.
Speaker 4 38:01 Okay.
Speaker 0 38:03 Have we been quick to try to impeach presidents if you had to like give a a pronouncement?
Speaker 3 38:12 No, I, in fact, I think we've never been quick enough. I mean, think of some heinous things that presidents have done historically that there was never any call for any form of impeachment. I mean, it is what a political attribute
Speaker 0 38:30 when he tells the Supreme court, you've made your ruling, but you don't have an army to enforce it.
Speaker 3 38:36 But he wasn't impeached. No, I know he was <inaudible> we've not been enough. Right? I mean, that seems pretty questionable behavior. Absolutely. That's what I'm saying is like, there's been so many moments of really questionable behavior. Jackson. I mean, Adams. That's why when you asked me, I thought, will Adam see alien and sedition acts? I mean, that's nuts. Lincoln suspends habeas Corpus. We have FDR who has executive order 90 66 where he removes Japanese Americans to concentration camps, right? I mean, some of the things that us presidents have done are heinous acts against the best interest of the people, but because most of these things are done during times of turbulence or war, so the alien sedition acts, it's during the quasi war with France. Um, with Jackson. There's incredible turmoil on the frontier. Um, of course during, you know, suspension of habeas Corpus is in the midst of the civil war, 1863.
Speaker 3 39:42 And with FDR, you have right in the midst of world war two, and in the wake of Pearl Harbor. So it's like the presidents have taken extreme action is very much against the interest of the people in some cases. And nothing's been done about it at all. And so if you think about impeachment as a political act, it often is that, I mean, because I think what's going on right now is heinous, but it's because it's not being, it's not happening in a time of war. The house is um, led by the opposition party, right? So there is going to be more support for going after the actions of a president. Now the reason it's not going to get passed in the Senate of course is because it's Republican led. But I think we've not been quick enough historically to, um, invoke articles of impeachment against, you know, against presidents who are completely out of control of their power.
Speaker 3 40:47 I think that the house and the checks and balances on the government, I think they are doing their job right now. It is their job, whether they East found guilty or not were impeached or removed or not, they are literally doing their job by checking on this situation. That's what the checks and balances are for. It's for other branches of government to go, Hey, what's the executive branch doing? Let's look into it. And it is the law or it's, excuse me, it's in the constitution that the president and the executive branch must comply with the investigation. And Lindsay Graham famously says that about Clinton, right?
Speaker 0 41:34 Yeah. I mean, I think it's interesting that impeachment might be one of those things. We haven't really used it in the past, maybe as quickly or forcefully as we should have.
Speaker 5 41:45 Um,
Speaker 0 41:47 so we look and say, well, we haven't used in the past, therefore we shouldn't use it now either. Um, green. Right, right. But, uh, but I think that's a rationale some people use is like, look, we've been real careful in the past. This may be, does it meet that threshold? Um, but I mean it's, it's there, it's in the constitution. It's the word impeachment is actually used. I mean, it's rarely does the constitution use specific language like that, but it is, um, I mean, I, I kind of wonder what would've happened if, if kind of Hamilton's a public trust if something like that or something like that. Um, uh, what was the term you said Mason used? Uh, maladministration upper maladministration. I wonder if something like that had appeared in the constitution, if this would have been used more often?
Speaker 3 42:39 I think it would have maybe, but, but also, I mean, I don't think this has to be a Republican or Democrat. This doesn't have to come down to political parties. It has to come down to, uh, just what are the jobs of these different branches of government. And if their job is to check each other, then they're just doing their job and even hasn't been used in the past. Well, that's a shame, right? I mean, we can't say, well, it hasn't been used in the past, so we're not going to do it now know they're doing their job and if there's nothing that was wrong that happened and there was no high crime or misdemeanor, there was no misappropriation of power or, or funds or nothing corrupt, then there should be no hesitation on the, on behalf of the executive branch to fully cooperate with this investigation.
Speaker 3 43:36 None whatsoever. Because if the investigation is carried out and there's nothing is found, then nothing's found and we move on. But it's, it's so important. And this is what the constitutional crisis aspects, like if the executive branch fails to cooperate, that is the crisis because that is what's written in the constitution is like it is the job of each of these branches to behave and conduct themselves in these ways. And if one branch fails to comply with that, as Lindsey Graham said in 1996, I believe that in and of itself is an impeachable offense. And he said yesterday on the 16th of October, I believe nothing's changed. Lindsey Graham said that. Right. Incredible.
Speaker 0 44:26 So I mean, how do you deal with issues like this in the classroom? Let's kind of wrap our conversation up there cause you know, we're both educators. Um,
Speaker 6 44:35 <inaudible>
Speaker 0 44:36 how do you deal with the topic like this in the classroom without alienating students who may politically completely disagree with things you're saying?
Speaker 3 44:50 Well, I mean kind of like I just did right now and I, I truly believe this. Like I don't think it has to be partisan. I don't think it has to come down to whether you do or do not support the precedents, do you? Or do you not support the founding documents of this country? And if you support the constitution, which so many people like to flout is there, you know, like their second Bible. If you believe in the constitution, if you believe in the founding principles of this nation, then you believe that this is a, an inquiry that's worthy of pursuit, that you, you would believe that this is entirely legitimate. You know, questioning that's happening here. And you would think that this is a normal exercise of government. Right? And so I would invite students to tell me otherwise. Right? And I don't, I don't mean that in a, in a confrontational way, but just tell me why you think otherwise. And I, and I, I'm sure I would get responses that were just wholly in support of, you know, saying that, well, this is just a witch hunt. Going back to what we talked about last week about witches, right? And that term though, those that terminology, but if it's a witch hunt, I mean it won't that shake out in the end. I don't know.
Speaker 0 46:24 I mean that was, that was Hamilton's defense for if you're worried about this being misused. Right,
Speaker 3 46:29 right. And that is, I mean, you know what, it could be being missed used if it is a political stunt media, it is being misused, but at the end of the day, the evidence just simply wouldn't be there. Right. And that, and that's where I think we have to trust the process. It's ugly. It's divisive. I think that it is causing an incredible amount of tension in this country. I think that it's going to boil over at some point in some way, but there people are doing their jobs here and if there's nothing to be seen and there's no evidence to be heard, then the truth shall set you free. Right? I mean, you shouldn't be afraid of the process. You should welcome the process if you are, if you're innocent it nuts. Like, if I were, if I were being accused of a crime and I were innocent, I'd be like, please investigate it. So that way you can prove I didn't do it. Right. Wow. Ever the optimist,
Speaker 0 47:30 Hillary there with your, this is going to boil over. Uh, this is, yeah, I, I write, encourage Jeff. I know I would, I would encourage, uh, educators, people teaching both in higher ed and kind of K through 12 if the topic comes up, don't shy away from it. Right. I mean, civics really isn't taught anymore in schools. Um, the public at large doesn't really understand how government functions. They have kind of a lot of this information floating out and about, uh, historians we have, we have an opportunity to kind of go back to where things are and say, look, this is what the constitution says. This is what's happened. Um, and don't shy away from it just because you're afraid you might ruffle a few feathers in the classroom.
Speaker 3 48:17 Yeah. And it's, again, for me, it's just, it hasn't, for me really, honestly, it has nothing to do with political affiliation. I don't see it in that way at all. And as a historian, I see it as just an exercise in how the country was designed. And to just talk about it without getting amped about your political affiliation and just having a legitimately intellectual exchange about it, it shouldn't get heated, you know? I mean, it just doesn't make sense for it to get heated when you're just talking straight facts about this, this what the constitution says, this is what the constitution doesn't say. Right. And, and then that way you can, I think, come to an understanding. Um, and that doesn't mean, you know, you walk out of the classroom and you can put your, you know, um, you can, you can still have a political affiliation or opinion, but to be able to just discuss it from a historical perspective and set aside any emotion that you feel toward it, I think we'd have a productive discussion.
Speaker 0 49:26 Right. Excellent. Well said. Well, I think that's about all our attire for today. Uh, thank you very much for joining us. I'd like to thank Hillary for all the great research she did. Uh, getting ready to kind of plumb the depths of impeachment. Those of you who are Watergate fans, we'll understand that. Reference plum plumber's pretty witty, so producing a podcast and providing new content every week isn't cheap. We've added a patron link on our
[email protected]. Clicking on that link takes you to our Patrion page. You can pledge to support our show with as little as $1 when you commit to $5, reward you with exclusive access to material we couldn't include in the main podcast. Additionally, if you pledge at $5 or more before the end of October, we'll see, you know, nifty vinyl sticker featuring our shows logo. Watch for other promos in the future. If you can't support us financially at this time, no worries.
Speaker 0 50:29 But we'd ask you to make sure you rate and review our show wherever you found us and remember to recommend us to your friends, family, and colleagues. Be sure to join us every week for new episodes. You can subscribe through iTunes or wherever you managed to locate this podcast, as well as through our own website. The website is an incomplete history.com. Everybody can post comments or questions on the website. If your question is something you'd like answered and it's relevant to an episode we do in the future, we'll definitely address that. We'll try to do our best to do that. Uh, once again, I'm Jeff on, I'm Hillary. We'd like to wish you well. Until next time, thanks for joining.
