Impeaching the President

POSC 151 (CTS): Political Issues – Impeaching the President

Department of Political Science Saint Mary’s College

Spring 2020 Spes Unica 312 TR 9:30–10:45

Instructor: Sheahan Virgin, Ph.D. (pronounced: Shay-EN) Email: [email protected] Oﬃce location: Spes Unica 264 Oﬃce hours: MW 10:00–11:30, TR 3:30–4:30; or by appointment

The U.S. originated the presidential system of government—i.e., three sepa- rate but co-equal branches sharing pow- ers and, due to this fractionalization of responsibility, “checking and balancing” each other. In creating the position of president, the Founders were mindful of two competing objectives. First, they feared that the chief executive would become a mere puppet of the legislative branch—as such, they sought to institutionally isolate the president (and his salary) from congressional meddling. “He tells it like it is.” Second, they also feared the possibility of an overweening, corrupt executive—as such, the American president would be no king, because Congress would retain the ability to remove from oﬃce a harmful president, albeit in extraordinary circumstances. There is a certain ‘Goldilocks-esque’ quality to the position the Founders designed: the president is neither too independent of nor too dependent on Congress; rather he is just right. Congress has sought to exercise its power of removal, called impeachment, just four times: Andrew Johnson survived (the Senate acquitted him), Richard Nixon resigned (thus short-circuiting an inquiry that was sure to result in conviction), Bill Clinton survived (the Senate acquitted him), and Donald Trump will (probably) survive, too.

1 Thus, an impeachment inquiry is a rare event, and when Congress launches one, it sensationalizes—the media excitedly chases the story, the president’s defenders cry foul, the president’s detractors breathlessly announce the ﬁndings of their investigative activity. But impeachment is also important because its proceedings compel Americans to grapple with thorny issues about American constitutionalism, the balance between presidential power and congressional oversight, and the behavioral norms that undergird our democracy. What is at stake is not merely the fate of a given chief executive, but also the kind of politics we want, as a nation, to keep.

Course structure

This course provides an introduction to impeachment, with a particular focus on the congressional investigation of President Trump and his (purportedly) corrupt dealings with Ukraine. In general, we can distinguish between impeachment as a constitutional ideal (i.e., how it should operate) and as a messy political reality (i.e., how it tends to operate in the real world). In Unit A, we will explore the impeachment process, the Ukraine scandal, and the historical examples of Nixon and Clinton. In Unit B, we will transition to learning about the types of behaviors for which presidents, ideally, should be removed. Finally, in Unit C we will inquire as to whether the impeachment process, as a reality, is “broken.” Topics for each unit include:

◦ Unit A – The Ghosts of Impeachments Past and Present

Impeachment procedures; the Founders’ fears of presidential corruptibil- ity; Trump and the Ukraine scandal; Nixon and Watergate; Clinton and his sexual assault of Monica Lewinsky

◦ Unit B – How Presidents Go Bad

Treason; bribery; high crimes and misdemeanors (obstruction of justice, lying to conceal wrongdoing, abusive pardoning, ﬁnancial corruption)

◦ Unit C – Is Impeachment Broken?

Elite polarization and supermajoritarianism; public opinion and the news media; the 25th Amendment as an alternative; the criminal courts as an alternative; constitutional amendments to the removal process

As you can see, we will cover a lot of ground together. In addition, we will read a wonderful, but spooky, novel—Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America.

2 Course themes and learning objectives

Throughout the course, we will pursue ﬁve ‘meta’-themes, to motivate class discussion, lecture, and student writing. These are as follows:

◦ Theme 1 – Has Trump Misbehaved?: To what extent is the President guilty of impeachable oﬀenses? Would the Founders have approved of his behavior?

◦ Theme 2 – Impeachments as Teaching Moments: What, if anything, have modern presidents learned from their predecessors’ impeachment-worthy errors?

◦ Theme 3 – The Balance of Power: How have impeachments altered executive– legislative branch relations? Can presidents actually be reined in?

◦ Theme 4 – Is Impeachment Broken?: How has the rise in partisan tribalism, as well as the development of partisan media, degraded the impeachment process?

◦ Theme 5 – Bias Towards the Status Quo: Why, both behaviorally and institutionally, is change in the American system so diﬃcult to achieve?

Finally, this course has three learning objectives. The ﬁrst is to deepen students’ understanding of impeachment as an ideal and a reality, as well as the desirability and feasibility of reforming the removal process. The second goal is for students to exit the course having thought carefully about, and to have arrived at an informed individual position on, the above-mentioned themes. The ﬁnal goal—less about substance and much more practical—is to improve students’ critical thinking, reading, and writing skills (each is in-demand professionally!). The table below describes how you will realize the Critical Thinking Seminar (CTS) goals of Saint Mary’s Sophia curricular program.

College and class policies

Creating a safe, inclusive environment is the responsibility of everyone at Saint Mary’s. Please familiarize yourself with the following policies, which will govern our conduct:

1. Academic integrity: To cheat, plagiarize, or falsify records is to violate the Saint Mary’s honor code. I will report suspected dishonesty to the Associate Dean and the Committee on Academic Standards, which then investigates. If a student is found to be in violation of the code, I will reduce her grade by a full letter (give her an F) for a minor (major) oﬀense. (Read the code)

3 You, CTS, and Sophia LO2

Critical thinking outcomes Fulﬁllment in POSC 151

“A Saint Mary’s student You will fulﬁll this outcome evaluates and formulates claims through careful reading and about issues, ideas, artifacts, or discussion of the books and (A) Critical thinking events using critical thinking articles we read, and by methods that are appropriate to thoughtfully engaging those the discipline of the seminar.” texts in the writing assignments.

“A Saint Mary’s student demonstrates basic information You will fulﬁll this outcome by literacy. . . she is able to seeking out and using academic determine how much and what sources for your written (B) Information literacy kind of information she needs, contribution to the ‘Reforming locate that information, the Impeachment Process’ evaluate its suitability, and use partner project. it to accomplish her purpose.”

You will fulﬁll this outcome by regular participation in class “A Saint Mary’s student discussions, as well as by demonstrates eﬀective oral working with your partner on (C) Communication communication in interactive or the ‘Reforming the presentational contexts.” Impeachment Process’ partner project and co-presenting your joint chapter.

“A Saint Mary’s student You will fulﬁll this outcome by (D) Writing develops and organizes written completing the three paper arguments.” assignments and exam.

2. Accessibility: If you have had documented academic accommodations in the past, or think you may be eligible for them presently, you should contact Iris Giamo ([email protected]) or Jennifer Wright ([email protected]) in the Disabilities Resource Oﬃce (DRO), Madeleva 103C, to make an appointment. DRO is responsible for coordinating academic accommodations for students each semester and will issue a letter of documentation to your faculty for the current semester. Requests for such accommodations will not be honored without this letter. Securing reasonable accommodations requires timely action on the part of the student. Please contact the staﬀ in DRO for an appointment. (Contact DRO)

3. Communication: I encourage students to communicate with me about the

4 course, their learning needs, and their career goals; indeed, I view mentorship as one of the most important ways in which an instructor can serve his or her students. I will try to respond to your emails within 24 hours. Note that emails to me are a good time to practice the art of writing clear, economical messages, a skill that is in-demand professionally. Aim for concision, use good manners (address me as ‘Prof. Virgin’) and grammar, and recognize that emails leave a digital trail.

4. Grading: I reserve A– and A for outstanding work; good (average) work will be B to B+ (C to B–). You may appeal grades that you feel have been awarded in error or unjustly. In these instances, I will re-grade the assignment, and your grade may increase (or decrease) upon review. Furthermore, please note that an assignment will be reduced by one-third of a letter grade for each day it is late; e.g., the highest grade possible for an assignment one-day-late is an A–, two-days-late is a B+, etc.

5. Privacy: The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the privacy of your academic record, mandating that your grades be shared with you, only. I am therefore not at liberty to discuss grades over email or with parents, or to return assignments via an intermediary. (Read about your rights)

6. Respect: Saint Mary’s College is committed to upholding standards that promote respect and human dignity in an environment that fosters academic excellence and professionalism. In addition, a political science course provides occasion to discuss topics relevant to party ID, ideology, policy, prejudice, and identity. Periodically, you may ﬁnd that you do not agree with me or your peers. In these instances, it is important for all of us to respect each other’s opinions and personal space. Bullying, racist, sexist, or homophobic comments, however, are not permitted. As a student, if you experience what you believe to be discrimination or harassment by another member of the community because of your identity (gender spectrum, race, national origin, religion, age, disability, citizenship status, genetic info, vet- eran status, sexual orientation, or political positions) please report this behavior on the SMC portal using the Bias Reporting Form. Note that instructors are mandatory reporters of discrimination. (Read the policy)(Report discrimination)

7. Sexual misconduct: Saint Mary’s has a zero tolerance policy with respect to sexual misconduct, which includes: non-consensual intercourse or contact, harassment, exploitation, stalking, dating and domestic violence, and retaliation. If something of this nature has happened to you, you are encouraged to report the in- cident to the college’s Title IX oﬃce (non-conﬁdential) or Belles Against Violence

5 (BAVO; conﬁdential). Note that instructors are mandatory reporters of sexual misconduct. (Read the policy)(Contact the Title IX oﬃce)(Contact BAVO)

8. Technology: Laptops in class are not permitted, except with a note from DRO.

Student resources

I also encourage you to take advantage of the following resources, to enhance both your learning and your well-being:

1. Emotional support: If you are experiencing depression, anxiety/panic, or other emotional hardship, please consider meeting individually with trained psycholog- ical counseling specialists at the Health and Counseling Center (HCC), located in the Angela Center. If you or someone you know is at immediate risk of self- inﬂicted harm, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 or text HOME to the Crisis Text Line at 741741. (Make an appointment)

2. Librarian specialists: Saint Mary’s library employs subject-specialists to assist students with their research projects. Ours are Joe Thomas, Director of the Cushwa-Leighton Library (incoming), and Ula Gaha (outgoing); they are incredi- bly nice and eager to help! Remember: Mr. Thomas and Ms. Gala are members of faculty; utilize their skills, but also your good manners. (Make an appointment)

3. News service: Staying abreast of current events and policy debates is a hallmark of an engaged citizen and of an individual committed to life-long learning. The library oﬀers students a free subscription to The New York Times, the U.S.’s most reputable newspaper. I encourage you to read daily. (Claim your subscription)

4. Writing studio: Meet individually with trained writing consultants to improve your academic writing or to brainstorm a writing project. (Make an appointment)

Grading and assessment

Your ﬁnal grade will be determined as follows:

◦ 20% Creative essays on Roth’s The Plot Against America 10% Articles of Impeachment against Charles Lindbergh 10% Newspaper report on the likelihood of Lindbergh’s conviction

6 ◦ 40% Reforming the impeachment process (partner project) 5% Written chapter resolution and abstract by partnership 5% Written pro or con outlines by partnership 20% Individual written half-chapter (pro or con) 10% Your oral presentation of your half-chapter

◦ 20% Midterm exam

◦ 20% Preparedness (i.e., doing the readings) and participation 10% Contributions to class discussion 10% Reading comprehension quizzes (8)

Grades are calculated as: A, 94–100%; A–, 90–93.9%; B+, 87–89.9%; B, 84–86.9%; B–, 80–83.9%; C+, 77–79.9%; C, 74–76.9%; C–, 70–73.9%; D, 60–69.9%; and, F, 0–59.9%. Grades .5–.9 will not be rounded up at the end of the semester.

Readings

Please purchase the following required books. Each should be available at the campus bookstore, but—with college so expensive—I encourage students to buy used copies.

◦ Bowman, Frank O. (2019). High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Im- peachment for the Age of Trump. Cambridge. (Used copies)

◦ Meacham, Jon, Peter Baker, Timothy Naftali, & Jeﬀery A. Engel. (2018). Im- peachment: An American History. Modern Library. (Used copies)

◦ Roth, Philip. (2005). The Plot Against America. Vintage. (Used copies)

I will provide students with either PDF copies of, or weblinks to, all additional readings. These are marked with a dagger (†) in the schedule. In particular, we will follow the Trump impeachment via reports from The New York Times, The Atlantic, and Lawfare.

Student responsibilities

As a participant in this course, you will be responsible for the following:

7 1. Preparedness: Come to class prepared, having completed the readings and thought of their relation to current or historical events. The purpose of assigned reading is not to make you miserable, but rather to structure and stimulate discussion, and assist you in your writing. Take the readings seriously—reﬂect. Be mindful when you read. I want you to focus not only on an author’s argument, but also on the way in which s/he makes and supports it. I will let you know which of the week’s assigned readings are due for Tuesday and Thursday. A note on reading!

To encourage students to keep up with the readings, I will administer eight pop quizzes, each of which will be 1.25% of your ﬁnal grade. The quizzes will be multiple-choice; each should be manageable provided you have completed the assigned readings for that session.

2. Participation: Participating in class (and taking notes) means not only respond- ing to questions I pose, but also posing your own; not just speaking to me, but also engaging your peers. Although I will not track attendance, note that if you do not come to class, then your participation grade will decline accordingly. A note on participating!

Participation is not the same as ‘being right’ or ‘knowing the answer.’ Often, the most eﬀective comments are those in which we admit confusion and ask the room (not just the instructor) for clariﬁcation. Please feel free to take risks by proposing new ideas or citing particular cases, and try to aim for comment quality over comment quantity.

3. Midterm: We will have a short in-class exam (closed-book) on units A and B. The exam will include short answers and multiple choice questions. You may bring to the exam one index card (front and back) for notes.

4. Creative essays on ‘The Plot Against America’: Each student will complete a two-part creative essay in response to Philip Roth’s novel, a dystopian alternative history of WWII: aviation hero Charles Lindbergh runs as a Republican in the 1940 presidential election and defeats two-term incumbent, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Upon assuming power, the Lindbergh Administration cuts a deal with Nazi Ger- many to keep the U.S. out of “Europe’s war,” all while anti-Semitic acts become commonplace across America. The story follows a Jewish family in New Jersey.

8 In Part I of this essay, you will write Articles of Impeachment against President Lindbergh; to do so, I recommend that you model the style of the articles the House of Representatives ﬁled against: 1) Nixon in 1974; 2) Clinton in 1998; and, 3) Trump in 2019. Has Lindberg committed treason? Bribery? A high crime or misdemeanor? If so, what are the missteps for which the House should indict him? For each charge, you are to: 1) formally write the article; and, 2) explain—using Bowman and other readings—why the charge applies to Lindbergh’s behavior (use examples from the novel), as well as why it is grounds for impeachment. I suggest 4–6 pages, 1-inch margins, double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font. In Part II, you will write a short ‘newspaper report’ (with headline, byline, pull quotes, and relevant photos) about what you believe would have happened to Lindbergh from your Part I. Use your imagination! Would the House have indicted him on any of the Articles? If so, would the Senate have acquitted him? If Lindbergh were threatened, how would the American people react? Would there be celebrations or protests? Please note that this part of the essay should be ﬁctional but based on your learning and intuition; it is not a response paper. Write from the perspective of a reporter (and use journalistic style), but feel free to utilize Roth’s characters (as well as to create new ones). Please write 2–3 pages, 1-inch margins, two columns, single-spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font. (Note: Maeve Filbin, ‘21, editor of The Observer, will speak to us about journalistic practice, as well as opportunities for you to contribute to the college newspaper.)

5. Partner project: Together, you and a partner will pursue a reform topic related to the removal process, with the end product of your partnership being the produc- tion of a ‘debate chapter.’ The topic you and your partner pursue in your chapter must be: 1) salient (i.e., related to the Trump era); 2) on topic (i.e., about removing a president from oﬃce); 3) unique (i.e., no duplicates), and, 4) approved by me. Below, is a list of suggested topics, to jump start the brainstorming process:

◦ Allow for a citizen recall election of the president ◦ Allow a citizen referendum to trigger impeachment hearings in the House ◦ Reduce the supermajoritarian threshold in the Senate to convict ◦ Spell out—in detail—what behavior constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors” ◦ Prohibit a president from pardoning himself ◦ Prohibit a president from using executive privilege to thwart investigations

9 ◦ Remove the Speaker of the House from the line of presidential succession ◦ Permit an impeached president to appeal to the Supreme Court ◦ Modify the 25th Amendment to allow for the removal of a corrupt president ◦ Permit the courts to try a president for criminal wrongdoing

Each partnership will produce a written chapter (1-inch margins, double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font) and give an oral presentation. A partnership’s chapter should include: 1) a clearly stated thesis in the form of a resolution (you and your partner will write this together); 2) an abstract that sets the stage for the subsequent debate (again, written together); 3) a Pro half-chapter (about 8 pages, written by either you or your partner); 4) a Con half-chapter (about 8 pages, written by the student who did not write Pro); and, 5) a combined list of references (written together). An outstanding student project will mirror the style and formatting with which I provide you. Although a given student will only write half a chapter, she must also know the opposing viewpoint (i.e., her partner’s half-chapter), in order to write a convincing argument and give a strong oral presentation. Presentations are scheduled for the last week of class; please have your abstract ready to disseminate to your classmates at this time. A note on sourcing and citing!

An idea that is not original to your thinking, and that you therefore ob- tained via a book, article, or website must be cited in-text as, e.g., Bow- man (2019:6–13) or parenthetically as, e.g., (Bowman, 2019:6–13). For three or more authors, please use ‘et al.’ Each source cited should corre- spond to a full citation in your list of references; if you need help on style, then model entries in the list of readings below. Please rely on academic books, journal articles, and news reports rather than low-quality Internet content. The library and Google Scholar are great places to search. Wikipedia is never an acceptable source.

10 Schedule

Please use this class schedule to take ownership of your learning. Note that this schedule is subject to change: invariably, we will have to make alterations to accommodate the needs/interests of the class and of the instructor (e.g., if I have to travel for professional obligations). I will update students on changes to the schedule by email and in class.

Some important dates

◦ Jan. 13: Classes begin

◦ Jan. 20: No Class – Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

◦ Feb. 14: Final day to drop

◦ Mar. 5: Midterm (Week 8)

◦ Mar. 7–15: No Class – Spring break

◦ Mar. 19: Partner project I – draft of resolution due in class (Week 10)

◦ Mar. 26: Partner project II – draft of abstract due in class (Week 11)

◦ Apr. 2: Creative essay I – Articles of Impeachment against Charles Lindbergh due, email timestamp by 11:59 pm (Week 12)

◦ Apr. 9: Partner project III – annotated list of sources due in class (Week 13)

◦ Apr. 16: Partner project IV – outlines of Pro/Con due in class (Week 14)

◦ Apr. 23: Creative essay II – Mock newspaper report on Lindbergh’s fate before Congress, email timestamp by 11:59 pm (Week 15)

◦ Apr. 10–13: No Class – Easter break

◦ Apr. 28 & 30: Student presentations (Week 16)

◦ Apr. 30: Classes end

◦ May 8: Partner project V – Final due, email timestamp by 12:30 pm (Week 17)

◦ May 16: Commencement

11 Prelude – Building Blocks

Week 1 – Jan. 13–17: How impeachment works

Topics: Introduction to impeachment; overview of process

◦ Meacham et al. (2018), “Introduction,” ix–xxiv.

† Baker, Peter. (2019, Dec. 18). “A President Impeached, and a Nation Convulsed,” The New York Times.(Link)

† Baker, Peter. (2019, Nov. 30). “Long Before Trump, Impeachment Loomed Over Multiple Presidents,” The New York Times.(Link)

† Black, Jr., Charles L. (1974, 2018). Ch.2: “Procedures,” from Charles L. Black, Jr. & Philip Bobbitt, Impeachment: A Handbook, New edition. Yale. 7–23.

† Liptak, Adam. (2019, Nov. 25). “Can Trump Challenge His Impeachment in the Supreme Court?,” The New York Times.(Link)

Week 2 – Jan. 20–24: The Founders and their fears

Topics: The Constitutional Convention, presidential power, British roots of

◦ Engel, Jeﬀery A. (2018). “The Constitution,” in Meacham et al., 3–46.

◦ Bowman (2019), Ch.4: “The Founders’ Impeachment,” 80–111.

† Melton, Jr., Buckner F. (2019, Oct. 31). “Impeachment Wasn’t Always This Fair,” The Atlantic.(Link)

† Gerhardt, Michael. (2019, Nov. 1). “The Impeachment Inquiry Is Fully Legiti- mate,” The Atlantic.(Link)

Unit A – The Ghosts of Impeachments Past and Present

Week 3 – Jan. 27–31: Donald Trump and the Ukraine scandal (2019–20)

Topics: Overview of, probable precedents set by

† Savage, Charlie. (2019, Sept. 26). “Document: Read the Whistle-Blower Com- plaint,” The New York Times.(Link)

† Savage, Charlie, Adam Goldman, & Kenneth P. Vogel. (2019, Oct. 30). “Docu- ment: Trump’s Call With the Ukrainian President,” The New York Times.(Link)

12 In addition, please read one of the following testimony reports:

† Shear, Michael D. (2019, Nov. 13). “Key Moments From the First Public Im- peachment Hearing: Taylor and Kent Testify,” The New York Times.(Link) † Baker, Peter. (2019, Nov. 15). “Key Takeaways from Marie Yovanovitch’s Hearing in the Impeachment Inquiry,” The New York Times.(Link) † Shear, Michael D. & Peter Baker. (2019, Nov. 19). “Key Moments from the Impeachment Inquiry Hearing: Vindman, Williams, Morrison and Volker Testify,” The New York Times.(Link) † Shear, Michael D. & Peter Baker. (2019, Nov. 20). “Key Moments From Sondland, Cooper and Hale Testimony,” The New York Times.(Link) † Shear, Michael D. (2019, Nov. 21). “Key Moments From Hill and Holmes’s Testimony in the Impeachment Inquiry,” The New York Times.(Link)

† The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (2019, Dec.) “Executive Summary” & “Key Findings of Fact,” The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report. 12–36. (Link)

† Baker, Peter. (2019, Dec. 13). “Document: Read the Articles of Impeachment Against President Trump,” The New York Times.(Link)

† The Editorial Board. (2019, Nov. 24). “Opinion: Why President Trump’s Ukraine Scheme Matters,” The New York Times.(Link)

† Qiu, Linda. (2019, Dec. 17). “Document: Read Trump’s Letter to Pelosi Protest- ing Impeachment,” The New York Times.(Link)

Week 4 – Feb. 3–7: The resignation of Richard Nixon (1973–74)

Topics: History of, precedents set by

◦ Naftali, Timothy (2018). “Richard Nixon,” in Meacham et al., 83–153.

◦ Bowman (2019), Ch.8: “The Fall of President Richard Nixon,” 180–209.

Week 5 – Feb. 10–14: The impeachment and acquittal of Bill Clinton (1998–99)

Topics: History of, precedents set by

◦ Baker, Peter (2018). “Bill Clinton,” in Meacham et al., 155–204.

13 ◦ Bowman (2019), Ch.9: “The Strange Case of William Jeﬀerson Clinton,” 210–34.

In addition, please read one of the following:

† Karni, Annie & Maggie Haberman. (2018, Sept. 27). “Clinton’s White House Faced Impeachment with Discipline; Trump’s Approach Is Diﬀerent,” The New York Times.(Link) † Harris, John F. (2019, Dec. 5). “Donald Trump, You’re No Bill Clinton: Two Impeachments Show How Much the Country Has Changed in 21 Years,” Politico.(Link)

Unit B – How Presidents Go Bad

Week 6 – Feb. 17–21: Impeachable conduct I

Topics: Treason and bribery; overview of “high crimes and misdemeanors”

◦ Bowman (2019), Ch.10: “The Scope of Impeachable Presidential Conduct: General Principles,” 235–52.

† Wehle, Kim. (2019, Dec. 20). “The Senate Is About to Abolish Impeachment.” The Atlantic.(Link)

† Hennessey, Susan, Quinta Jurecic, & Benjamin Wittes. (2019, Sept. 24). “So You Want to Impeach the President,” Lawfare.(Link)

† Fredrickson, Caroline. (2019, Dec. 4). “Democrats, Don’t Overreach on Impeach- ment,” The New York Times.(Link)

In addition, please read one of the following:

† Byrne Hessick, Carissa. (2019, Nov. 21). “Bribery Is Right There in the Constitution” The Atlantic.(Link) † Berwick, Ben & Justin Florence. (2019, Nov. 18). “The Bad Arguments that Trump Didn’t Commit Bribery,” Lawfare.(Link)

Week 7 – Feb. 24–28: Impeachable conduct II

Topics: The “high crime” of obstruction of justice; applied to the Trump case

◦ Bowman (2019), Ch.11: “Impeachment for Obstruction of Justice,” 253–62.

14 † Schmidt, Michael S. (2019, Oct. 25). “Key Witness in Impeachment Inquiry Asks Federal Court to Rule Over Testifying,” The New York Times.(Link)

† Savage, Charlie. (2019, Dec. 4). “Trump Blocked Key Impeachment Witnesses. Should Congress Wait?,” The New York Times.(Link)

† Wehle, Kim. (2019, Dec. 2). “The House Is Making This Fight Too Easy for Trump: Democrats Should Try Harder to Compel Testimony From the President’s Underlings.” The Atlantic.(Link)

† King, Sen. Angus. (2019, Dec. 2). “Ukraine Scandal: I Know Why Trump Top Dogs—Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry & Bolton—Won’t Bark,” USA Today.(Link)

◦ Bowman (2019), Ch.13: “Impeachment for Lying,” 267–76.

Week 8 – Mar. 2–6: Impeachable conduct III

Topics: The “high crime” of abusive pardoning; applied to the Trump case

Note: Let’s keep the reading light this week, as the Midterm is on Thursday.

◦ Bowman (2019), Ch.12: “Impeachment for Abuse of the Pardon Power,” 263–66.

† Greenberg, Mark & Harry Litman. (2018, June 19). “Trump’s Corrupt Use of the Pardon Power,” Lawfare.(Link)

In addition, please read one of the following:

† Epps, Garrett. (2018, Dec. 17). “Can Trump Pardon Himself?: He Can Cer- tainly Try It—But That Doesn’t Mean He’d Succeed,” The Atlantic.(Link) † Bobbitt, Philip. (2018, June 20). “Self-Pardons: The President Can’t Pardon Himself, So Why Do People Think He Can?,” Lawfare.(Link)

Week 9 – Mar. 9–13: Spring Break!

Please relax with family, friends, and pets (“woof ”).

Note: I strongly encourage you to read the required novel, The Plot Against Amer- ica, over break. Your creative essays on the book will be coming due soon.

15 Week 10 – Mar. 16–20: Impeachable conduct IV

Topics: The “high crime” of ﬁnancial enrichment; applied to the Trump case

◦ Bowman (2019), Ch.14: “Impeachment for Corruption, Schemes of Peculation, the Emoluments Clauses, and the Avaricious President,” 253–62.

† Yourish, Karen & Larry Buchanan. (2019, Jul. 10). “Trump Still Makes Money From His Properties. Is This Constitutional?,” The New York Times.(Link)

Group A should read each of these articles about Trump International Hotel, D.C.:

† Racine, Karl A., Brian E. Frosh, & Norman L. Eisen. (2018, Jul. 26). “Trump’s Emoluments Trap,” The New York Times.(Link) † LaFraniere, Sharon. (2018, Dec. 17). “Justice Department Asks Court to Halt Emoluments Case Against Trump,” The New York Times.(Link) † LaFraniere, Sharon. (2019, Jul. 10). “Federal Appeals Court Rules for Trump in Emoluments Case,” The New York Times.(Link)

Group B should read each of these articles about Trump National Doral Miami:

† Rogers, Katie & Eric Lipton. (2019, Oct. 17). “Trump Will Host Next G7 Summit at His Doral Resort,” The New York Times.(Link) † Lipton, Eric. (2019, Oct. 18). “Trump’s Choice to Bring G7 to His Own Resort Would Violate Conﬂict-of-Interest Law, If He Weren’t President,” The New York Times.(Link) † Karni, Annie. (2019, Oct. 21). “Trump Dismisses ‘Phony Emoluments Clause,’ Defending Doral,” The New York Times.(Link)

Unit C – Is Impeachment Broken?

Week 11 – Mar. 23–27: Are elites the problem?

Topics: Partisanship as an identity, congressional hyper-tribalism, pressured moderates

† Green, Donald, Bradley Palmquist, & Eric Schickler. (2002). Ch.1: “Introduction,” from Partisan Hearts & Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. Yale. 1–23.

◦ Bowman (2019), “Counting to Sixty-seven in a Tribal Age, or Why Impeachment is Unlikely,” Ch.16 excerpt, 311–15.

16 † Totenberg, Nina. (2019, Dec. 10). “From Consesnsus to Deadlock: Is Impeach- ment Still a Check on Presidents,” NPR.(Link) † Glover, Juleanna. (2019, Nov. 12). “There’s a Surprisingly Plausible Path to Removing Trump From Oﬃce: It Would Take Just Three Republican Senators to Turn the Impeachment Vote Into a Secret Ballot.,” Politico.(Link) In addition, please read one of the following:

† Coppins, McKay. (2019, Oct. 20). “The Liberation of Mitt Romney,” The Atlantic.(Link) † Everett, Burgess. (2019, Nov. 3). “‘Slings and Arrows’: Impeachment Bears Down on Susan Collins,” Politico.(Link) † Hulse, Carl. (2019, Nov. 8). “Senate Democrats Face Their Own Risks Over Impeachment,” The New York Times.(Link)

† Fandos, Nicholas. (2020, Jan. 8). “McConnell, Rebuﬃng Pelosi, Declines to Budge on Impeachment Trial Terms,” The New York Times.(Link)

Week 12 – Mar. 30–Apr. 3: Is the mass public the problem?

Topics: Media hyper-partisanship, the electorate as an ‘appeals court,’ public opinion † Baker, Peter. (2018, Nov. 23). “A Split Decision From Congress Will Leave Voters with Final Say on Trump,” The New York Times.(Link) † Bycoffe, Aaron, Ella Koeze, & Nathaniel Rakich. (2019, Fall–Winter). “Do Amer- icans Support Impeaching Trump?,” FiveThirtyEight.(Link) † Kohut, Andrew. (2014, Aug. 8). “How the Watergate Crisis Eroded Public Sup- port for Richard Nixon,” Pew Research Center.(Link) † DeSilver, Drew. (2019, Oct. 3). “Clinton’s Impeachment Barely Dented His Public Support, and It Turned Off Many Americans,” Pew Research Center.(Link) † Prior, Markus. (2007). Ch.1: “Introduction,” from Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elec- tions. Cambridge. 1–26. † Mitchell, Amy, Jeffrey Gottfried, Jocelyn Kiley, & Katerina Eva Matsa. (2015). “From Fox News to Facebook: How Liberals and Conservatives Keep Up with Politics.” Pew Research Center.(Link)

17 Week 13 – Apr. 6–10: Are the institutions the problem?

Topics: Ways to ‘ﬁx’ impeachment, constitutional and legislative obstacles

† Hulse, Carl. (2019, Dec. 12). “In a Polarized Era, Will Impeachment Become a ‘New Normal’?,” The New York Times.(Link)

† The Political Magazine (2019, Dec. 6). “How to Fix Impeachment: Nine Experts On What’s Gone So Wrong with the Trump Proceedings—and What America Should Do about It,” Politico.(Link)

† Levinson, Sanford & David E. Kyvig (2016). Ch.1: “Resolved, Article V Should Be Revised to Make It Easier to Amend the Constitution and to Call a Consti- tutional Convention,” from Ellis, Richard J. & Michael Nelson. Debating Reform: Conﬂicting Perspectives on How to Fix the American Political System, 3rd edition. SAGE/CQ Press. 1–18.

† Smith, Steven S. & Wendy J. Schiller. Ch.15: “Resolved, Senate Rule XXII Should Be Amended So That Filibusters Can Be Ended By a Majority Vote,” from Ellis, Richard J. & Michael Nelson. Debating Reform: Conﬂicting Perspectives on How to Fix the American Political System, 3rd edition. SAGE/CQ Press. 266–285.

Week 14 – Apr. 13–17: Is removal via the 25th Amendment a viable alternative?

Topics: Presidential incapacitation, the Cabinet as political actor

◦ Bowman (2019), Ch.15: “The Twenty-ﬁfth Amendment as an Alternative to Im- peachment,” 286–95.

† Baker, Peter. (2018, Sept. 22). “Talk of the 25th Amendment Underscores a Volatile Presidency,” The New York Times.(Link)

† Kalt, Brian C. (2019, Oct. 22). “What the 25th Amendment Is Really For,” Lawfare.(Link)

Week 15 – Apr. 20–24: Is removal via the criminal courts a viable alternative?

Topics: Dept. of Justice memos, presidential immunity

† Liptak, Adam. (2017, May 29). “A Constitutional Puzzle: Can the President Be Indicted?,” The New York Times.(Link)

18 † Dellinger, Walter. (2018, June 18). “Indicting a President Is Not Foreclosed: The Complex History,” Lawfare.(Link)

Postlude – Final Weeks

Week 16 – Apr. 28–30: Student presentations

Note: Presenters must email a co-written abstract to the class 24 hours prior; half of the class will go on Tuesday, Apr. 28, and the remainder on Thursday, Apr. 30.

Week 17 – May 4–8: Final exam week!

Note: There is no ﬁnal exam; the ﬁnal draft of your chapter is due by email at the conclusion of our exam time—May 8 at 12:30 pm.