FAKULTA SOCIÁLNÍCH STUDIÍ
Study of the Impeachment Process
Bakalářská práce
ALEŠ POHL
Vedoucí práce: doc. Andrew Lawrence Roberts, Ph.D.
Katedra politologie obor Politologie
Brno 2020
STUDY OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS
Bibliografický záznam
Autor: Aleš pohl Fakulta sociálních studií Masarykova univerzita Katedra politologie Název práce: Studie procesu impeachmentu Studijní program: Politologie, bakalářský studijní program Studijní obor: Politologie Vedoucí práce: doc. Andrew Lawrence Roberts, Ph.D. Rok: 2020 Počet stran: 64 Klíčová slova: Proces impeachmentu, Impeachment, Prezident Spojených Států, Donald J. Trump, William J. Clinton, Robert Mueller, Kenneth Starr
2 STUDY OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS
Bibliographic record
Author: Aleš pohl Faculty of Social Studies Masaryk University Department of Political Science Title of Thesis: Study of the Impeachment Process Degree Programme: Political Science, Bachelor’s degree programme Field of Study: Political Science Supervisor: doc. Andrew Lawrence Roberts, Ph.D. Year: 2020 Number of Pages: 64 Keywords: Impeachment process, Impeachment, US President, Donald J. Trump, William J. Clinton, Robert Mueller, Kenneth Starr
3 STUDY OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS
Abstrakt
Tato bakalářská práce se zabývá problematikou procesu impeachmentu Prezidenta Spojených Států Amerických. Cílem práce je popsat a vysvětlit samotný institut impeachmentu a jeho historii a následně popsat a vysvětlit dva vzácné případy impeachmentu Williama J. Clintona a Donalda J. Trumpa, a to od jejich samotných počátků, celkový proces a jeho také jeho dopady. Závěrem práce je komparace těchto procesů a vysvětlení a komparace jejich hlavních bodů, událostí, procesů a osobností.
4 STUDY OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS
Abstract
This bachelor thesis is dealing with the process of impeachment of the President of the United States of America. The aim of this thesis is to de- scribe and explain the institute of impeachment itself and its history, and subsequently describe the two rare cases of impeachment of William J. Clinton and Donald J. Trump, from the very beginning of the process, its progress, and its effects. Its closing part is the comparison of these pro- cesses and explaining and comparing their key points, events, proce- dures, and individuals.
5
STUDY OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS
Čestné prohlášení
Prohlašuji, že jsem bakalářskou práci na téma Study of the Impeachment Process zpracoval sám. Veškeré prameny a zdroje informací, které jsem použil k sepsání této práce, byly citovány v textu a jsou uvedeny v seznamu použitých pramenů a literatury.
V Brně 28. prosince 2020 Aleš pohl
7
STUDY OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS
Poděkování
Chci poděkovat vedoucímu této bakalářské práce doc. Andrew Lawrenci Robertsovi, Ph.D., za jeho cenné poznatky, rady a připomínky, které umožnili vznik této práce, a jeho nekonečnou trpělivost v náročném roce a závěru studia.
Šablona DP 3.0.6-FSS (2019-11-29) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of contents
1 Introduction 13
2 The Impeachment Process 15 2.1 History ...... 15 2.2 Impeachment as determined by the constitution ...... 15 2.3 What are „high Crimes and Misdemeanors“? ...... 17 2.4 How does impeachment work? ...... 18
3 Impeachment of William J. Clinton 20 3.1 The Fiske-Starr Report ...... 20 3.2 Paula Jones ...... 21 3.3 Linda Tripp ...... 21 3.4 The case against William J. Clinton ...... 22 3.5 The impeachment process of William J. Clinton ...... 23 3.6 The Senate trial of William J. Clinton ...... 26 3.7 The aftermath of William J. Clinton’s impeachment ...... 28
4 Impeachment of Donald J. Trump 29 4.1 The Russia probe ...... 29 4.2 The investigation of Rober S. Mueller ...... 31 4.3 The phone call ...... 33 4.4 The Trump-Ukraine scandal ...... 33 4.5 The case against Donald J. Trump ...... 34 4.6 The impeachment process of Donald J. Trump ...... 35 4.7 The Senate trial of Donald J. Trump ...... 36 4.8 The aftermatch of Donald J. Trump’s impeachment ...... 38
5 Comparison of Clinton’s and Trump’s impeachments 39
6 Conclusion 42
11 OBSAH
Sources 44
Attachment A: Bill Clinton approval ratings 52
Attachment B: Donald Trump approval ratings 57
12 SOURCES
1 Introduction
This thesis has been written shortly after the events of the successful impeachment of 2019. A presidency, which has been in a constant local and international spotlight since even before its start, has inevitably brought a vast amount of attention to the entire impeachment process. It has also found key similarities and differences between the two latest impeachments – that of Donald Trump in 2019, and of Bill Clinton from 1998. This thesis will be aiming to study, describe and explain the pro- cesses and results of the impeachment of William J. Clinton in 1998, as well as the events leading up to it. It will examine and explain the mo- tives, procedures, and results of not only the impeachment itself but also the surrounding factors, events and individuals and their strategies. And although Clinton’s impeachment has been already well described by many authors and political scientists, it has not yet been fully put to the side and compared with the most recent impeachment of Donald J. Trump. And as the events from the latest impeachment process are still very recent, the thesis will offer the same analysis and explanation of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump in 2019. Impeachment is one of the most vital tools of the constitution of the United States of America. It assures the possibility of bringing charges against a civil officer working for the country’s government or judicature. And although impeachment is a process that can be initiated against the President, Vice President, and all Civil Officers, like Judges or Governors (Constitution of the United States, Article II Section IV). For the purpose of this thesis, we shall be further discussing mainly the impeachment process involving the highest government official, the President of the United States. The first chapters will examine the core of the impeachment process as a legal process, its origins and functions, some of its more tricky parts, and the overall development of the process in both history and individual cases. The subsequent chapter will be fully focused on the impeachment process of William J. Clinton, following the case from its very roots, making its way through the initialy contained and separate parts of the story, that eventually merged into a story that was seen as enough to impeach the President. Followed by the impeachment process in the
13 SOURCES
House of Representatives and trial in the Senate, the chapter is closed by the impacts that were following the whole process. The chapter about the impeachment of Donald J. Trump will be of very simmilar form. Following the President’s story from the beginning of where the allegations started to pick up, the chapter examines the main events that lead all the way to the beginning of the impeachment process, once again following it all the way to the aftermath of the proceeding. The last chapter offers a complete comparison of both of those historical events from start to finish, highlighting both their differences and similarities and explaining this comparison’s stance against the test of time. The thesis also offers three main questions being examined throughout the work: • What are the key differences between Clinton’s and Trump’s impeachment? • How come both presidents got acquitted in the Senate? • Was the impeachment process failed and in vain, or did it still make a difference? These, and other questions, will be answered in the following chapters.
14 SOURCES
2 The Impeachment Process
2.1 History
“When our founders wrote about removing the president for “high crimes and misdemeanors”, they were thinking first and foremost of a commander in chief who wielded the powers of the presidency for the benefit of himself instead of the benefit of the people.” (Katyal, 2019, 10)
The introduction of the impeachment process happened alongside the creation of the Constitution of the United States of America in 1787. The Revolutionary War with the British Empire has set the New World on a very different path than its counterparts on the Old Continent. A path without a King, without absolutism, without a sole leader with a right to act as he pleases, as he is blessed by the power from God himself. No, the newly built confederacy has chosen the way of democracy, without di- vine rulers and their subjects. It established a system, in which the power was vested in its citizens, and was merely bestowed to the government officials. And from the very beginning, the impeachment process has been a key instrument of assuring the transition from the King to the President, giving the country a possibility of removing the head of the state, without the need of having to remove the head of the state quite literally. The possibility of condemning the actions of the President by the House of Representatives, followed by the possibility for the Senate of stripping him of his presidential powers and removing him from office.
2.2 Impeachment as determined by the constitution
The constitution is defining the entirety of the impeachment process seemingly very clearly. The articles mentioning the impeachment are as follows:
“The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
(Constitution of the United States, Article I Section II)
15 SOURCES
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Im- peachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concur- rence of two thirds of the Members present.” “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualifica- tion to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
(Constitution of the United States, Article I Section IV)
“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Im- peachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
(Constitution of the United States, Article II Section IV)
As stated, the constitution speaks very clearly about how the im- peachment process should look like. It sorts out the power to start the impeachment and gives the power and conditions to try and remove the president from office. It also clearly states what shall or shall not happen after the entire process is complete. However, the final and probably most important part of the constitution regarding the impeachment is also the least evident one. And that is the motive of impeachable offenses. Treason and bribery are not hard to define. However, “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” have proven to be the major hindrance in the im- peachment process, especially in the latest decades, and have become the center point of conflict with both the latest impeachments of President Clinton and President Trump. This point has increasingly become the fuel of partisan disputes, whether the president has acted in a way that should be considered an impeachable offense. And although the founding fathers have embedded the impeachment in the constitution as a tool to secure freedom and de- mocracy, it is now becoming a center of attention as a possible political tool being abused for the gain of the opposition party (Neumann, 2007).
16 SOURCES
2.3 What are „high Crimes and Misdemeanors“?
As the previous section has hinted, it is simply impossible to fully define and specify the phrase “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. And alt- hough it can create a scenario of uncertainty and unpredictability, it should not be viewed as a flaw in the phrasing or the constitution. This phrasing leaves a vast space for interpretation and can be thus better ap- plied for individual circumstances or the “crime” committed by the pres- ident. “To understand what high Crimes and Misdemeanors are, it helps first to understand what they are not. That’s because impeachment is de- signed to be rare, reserved only for a very specific kind of offense” (Katyal, 2019, 25). Neal Katyal then follows with two main examples of what the phrase does not represent: “First that the president can be im- peached only for crimes and misdemeanors laid out in the federal crimi- nal code, and second that the president can be impeached for all crimes and misdemeanors laid out in the criminal code” (Katyal, 2019, 25-26). The first case can be given the example of a president unwilling to take any action while the country would be under attack by armed forces of a foreign power. Such inaction is not directly embedded in the law as a criminal offense, as there is no law forcing the president to act. How- ever, such behavior would be most definitely seen as an impeachable act and the president would be removed from office promptly. In the second case, the President of the United States being removed from office for littering or jaywalking is a situation that surely requires no further exposition. Another important part of the phrase is the word “high”. Although the majority of people believe that the word “high” represents the seri- ousness of the crime, that is not quite what the constitution means. The phrase “High Treason” or “High Crime”, before the founding of the United States, meant an act against the Crown and/or the King himself (Oxford LibGuides) (New York Times, 1861). In this meaning, “high crimes” mean any crimes committed against the highest possible source of power. And although in the United Kingdom, that power was the King himself, in a democracy, this power is coming from the people. Therefore, “high crimes” in this case do not mean crimes against the King/President, but
17 SOURCES crimes against the people of the country. Simply put, it is the exact oppo- site of what it used to be in the United Kingdom: an offense committed by the head of state against its people. This explanation is further supported by Alexander Hamilton him- self, explaining that “The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust” (Hamilton, 1788). Hamilton’s explanation is likely the closest to the definition of what “high crimes and misdemeanors” actually are. The most obvious example of such crime is the case developing around President Nixon. The at- tempts to cover up evidence, obstructing justice, and effectively violating the law. However, the same words could be used to describe the case of the Impeachment of President Clinton. But Nixon resigned from office, knowing there is not a chance to escape the impeachment and removal from office because his actions were going directly against the will of the people and to benefit only himself. “The crime he was covering up - a burglary of his political opponent’s headquarters - was an ‘abuse of pub- lic trust’, in that it undermined our democracy itself” (Katyal, 2019, 36). And although it seems ironic, that the prime example of an impeach- able offense is the one that did not result in the impeachment process, it still means that the simple possibility of impeachment has fulfilled its purpose.
2.4 How does impeachment work?
Just like in a criminal case, impeachment itself does not involve the final step of removing the president from office. Much like an indictment in criminal court, it can be seen as a first step of the process, simply a formal accusation, which can lead to trial. Only the House of Representatives has the power to initiate the im- peachment process. The matter of impeachment is referred to a commit- tee, which reviews the accusations and evidence. If the case is deter- mined as sufficient and the committee gives a recommendation, the House of Representatives holds a vote. Each charge, also called an article of impeachment, is voted on separately and needs only a simple majority to pass. If only one of those articles passes, the president is officially im- peached, and the case moves further to the Senate for trial (U.S. Senate).
18 SOURCES
The verdict on impeachment is the only case in which the Senate acts as the court. A committee of members from the House of Represent- atives acts as prosecutors, while the impeached president and his law- yers act as the defense. Unlike in the House of Representatives, the trial requires a majority of two-thirds to convict the president and remove him from office (U.S. Senate). Furthermore, after the removal from power, the president is no longer qualified to hold office in the future and can be prosecuted in a standard criminal case. And although the proceedings sound like quite a straightforward task, as this thesis will show, there is a vast amount of carte blanche for both the prosecutors and the prosecuted along almost every step of the way. That inevitably results in making the process often complicated, chaotic, lengthy, and difficult to follow. The subsequent chapters will at- tempt to clarify these factors, especially on the examples of impeach- ments in 1998/1999 and 2019/2020.
19 SOURCES
3 Impeachment of William J. Clinton
The beginning of the Impeachment process of Bill Clinton can be viewed as three separate stories meeting together and forming into a case against the sitting president. The first is the initially vast investigation of Kenneth Starr, the sec- ond is Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit, and the third, being the president’s personal relationship with Monica Lewinsky and its story be- ing shared with Monica’s friend, Linda Tripp. And although all 3 of those storylines merged into the very well-known impeachment process, the beginnings of those storylines are just as important.
3.1 The Fiske-Starr Report
The Clinton administration had a very rough start from the beginning, surrounded by scandals. The most significant one, and the one that resulted in the start of the Starr Report, was the Whitewater controversy. The Whitewater affair, revolving around investments of the Clintons in Whitewater Development Company in Arkansas, real estate, loans, and financing, became very consuming for the current administration. “In 1978, The Clintons bought 230 acres of land with James B. McDou- gal, an Arkansas businessman whose failing savings and loan, Madison Guaranty, later sought lenient treatment from state regulators.” (Engel- berg, 1994) Leon Neyfakh in Slate’s podcast Slow Burn describes the affair as an “incredibly boring scandal that no-one really understood, that ended up changing the course of the Clinton presidency.” (Neyfakh, 2018). The scandal had three main parts. First was the investment into the exciting new developmental project, building a vacation community in Little Rock in Arkansas. However, the development failed. The second part of the Whitewater scandal is the 300.000 $ loan that Mr. McDougal was requesting to boost his business regarding the Whitewater project. Allegedly, then-governor Clinton used his influence to help McDougal se- cure the loan and thus opening the investment possibility for himself as one of the very first investors in the project. The last part was centered
20 SOURCES around the unspecified legal work of Hillary Clinton regarding the White- water project. However, that was mostly the question regarding ethics and judgment, not a criminal offense (Engelberg, 1994 & Gerth, 1992). But those weak, almost dull scandals, got much more complicated and public after the unexpected suicide of Vince Foster, a long-time friend of Clinton’s and Deputy White House Counsel in 1993. Along with the handling of documents from his office, the rumors, conspiracy theo- ries, and suspicions began to spread and cloud the Clinton administra- tion in a scandal that was no longer possible to contain (Robert, 2000). Shortly after, in an effort trying to untangle the alleged coverup and withholding of evidence, the wide investigation of the Independent Counsel Robert Fisk began. However, he got shortly succeeded by Ken- neth Starr, who went to even more extreme lengths, probing a huge area around Clintons’ lives, hoping to find literally anything that could be used against his presidency. And, as we know, he eventually succeeded.
3.2 Paula Jones
The Paula Jones story begins with another affair, often called the Troopergate. Several Arkansas state troopers claimed that they helped arrange, cover, and organize sexual liaisons for governor Bill Clinton (Rempel, 1993). After the story broke in the American Spectator, one of the mentioned women in the story, Paula Jones, went public with her story (The Washington Post, 1998). Although widely disregarded and not believed from the start, on May 6th, 1994, Paula Jones and her legal team pressed charges of sexual harassment against the president (The Washington Post, 1997). After making its way through the courts all the way to the Supreme Court, the Court ruled against Clinton, trying to delay the case until after he leaves office, and allowed it to proceed (Justia, 1997). Paula Jones’ lawyers have been searching for other women with the same story, trying to find a pattern of Clinton’s behavior. One of those women, connecting Paula Jones’ case to the impeachment process, was no-one other than Monica Lewinsky.
3.3 Linda Tripp
The sexual relationship between the president and the intern was happening between 1995 and 1997. And although they managed to keep
21 SOURCES the relationship and their meetings secret, the story became public later anyway. Because later on, Monica Lewinsky shared her story with her friend, Linda Tripp (Gates, 2020). Linda Tripp, previously an employee in the white house during the Bush administration and the beginning of the Clinton administration, felt the need to go public with this story. In her own words, she believed that Monica Lewinsky was being used and mistreated by the ongoing relationship with the president, who kept trying to break it off but also kept changing his mind. In October 1997, Linda Tripp started recording the phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky for months, while trying to get her to talk about her relationship with the president (Neyfakt, 2018).
3.4 The case against William J. Clinton
In 1998, those three storylines began merging together. Linda Tripp started cooperating with the lawyers building up and pushing the case of Paula Jones through the courts. At last, a massive story to confirm Bill Clinton’s pattern and make Jones’ story much more believable. Linda Tripp also gave the months’ worth of tapes of Monica Lewinsky talking about her relationship with the president to the independent counsel Kenneth Starr. At last, a massive lead on the president’s wrong behavior in the four long years of the ongoing investigation. And so the accusations against the president began to mount and form. Accusations of the president having an inappropriate relationship and lying and manipulating in an effort to cover-up the story. Bill Clinton tried to dismiss and deny the story. On January 26th, 1998, comes the famous denial:
“But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.” (Clinton, 1998)
22 SOURCES
In the meantime, Kenneth Starr was building up the case to bring down the president. As widely believed, Starr’s incredible religious de- votion played a huge role in the case, as an effort to punish the president for his affair and infidelity (Neyfakt, 2018). However, the polling of the president’s approval rating kept showing constant support of the presi- dent and even raised the support in the light of all the new accusations and the increasing hunt for the president (see Attachment A). Neverthe- less, the case kept going, mainly revolving around the president lying about the relationship under oath. After months of efforts from the White House to defend from the at- tackers on the president, by attempts of showing the president’s regret and remorse, there was not a big public request for impeachment. And even though the prosecutors did not have the support of the general pub- lic, the Starr Report came out in September 1998, stating multiple possi- ble grounds for impeachment. And so, the impeachment process began (Broder, 1998).
3.5 The impeachment process of William J. Clinton
The Starr Report gave the following grounds for impeachment:
1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. 2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. 3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him. 4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case. 5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys. 6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their
23 SOURCES relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. 7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case. 8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case. 9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition. 10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury – and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury. 11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 – all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States. (The Washington Post, 1998)
One of the reasons the Republican party wanted to proceed with the impeachment, was that both chambers of the house were currently with the Republican majority. On October 8th, 1998, the House of Representa- tives voted 258-176 in favor of starting the impeachment proceedings (Crowley, 1998).
24 SOURCES
However, the November 1998 elections once again proved that the already started impeachment process does not have the proper public support. The Democratic Party not only held their ground in the Senate but even gained six seats in the House of Representatives (Kyvig, 2008). This election result made the House Speaker, Newt Gingrich resign from his position and from Congress, as he believed that the impeach- ment process was reasonable and predicted that it would gain the Re- publican Party more support. However, the elections proved him wrong (Gibbs, 1998).
Furthermore, because of the vast and extended investigation of Ken- neth Starr, the House Judiciary Committee did not conduct any further investigations or hearings. A major part of the impeachment proceedings has been in the floor debates.
Thus, on December 16th, 1998, four articles of impeachment were introduced to the House. Article I - Perjury in the Grand Jury Article II - Perjury in the Civil Case Article III - Obstruction of Justice Article IV - Abuse of Power (Congress.gov, 1998)
On December 19th, the House proceeded to vote on which articles would be further sent to the Senate. The first article passed 228 to 206 votes, with 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans splitting from their party. The second article got rejected 205 to 229 votes, with again 5 dem- ocrats voting for and 28 republicans splitting away. The third article passed 221 to 212 votes, with 5 Democrats once again voting for it and 12 Republicans voting against it. The fourth article, claiming the abuse of power, failed 148 to 285 votes, was rejected with only one Democrat voting against for, and shocking 81 republicans voting against the article (Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, 1998). Thus, the President of the United States has been impeached. How- ever, seeing the breaking of the party lines, and many republicans not supporting the impeachment proceedings and its articles, showed that
25 SOURCES the possibility of actually convicting the President in the Senate is incred- ibly low. Not having the support of the public, not having the support of its own members, losing seats in the latest elections, that can be only blamed on the long and exhausting investigation into the president’s pri- vate life by Kenneth Starr and the resignation of Newt Gingrich, were all factors in favor for the president. And although this was the first time in history when an elected president was facing possible removal from of- fice (as Andrew Johnson was not the elected president), along with a great economic situation of the country, support of the public, and own- ing up to his mistakes and apologizing for his behaviors, Bill Clinton was on a road to a full acquittal.
3.6 The Senate trial of William J. Clinton
The Senate trial took 21 days in total. The House members that served as managers, were Henry Hyde (chairman), Jim Sensenbrenner, Bill McCollum, George Gekas, Charles Canady, Steve Buyer, Ed Bryant, Steve Chabot, Bob Barr, Asa Hutchinson, Chris Cannon, James E. Rogan, and Lindsey Graham (Politico, 2008). The defense of Bill Clinton was Cheryl Mills. The rest of the team were Charles Ruff, David E. Kendall, Dale Bumpers, Bruce Lindsey, Nicole Seligman, Lanny A. Breuer, and Gregory B. Craig (The Washington Post, 1999). The opening statements from both sides took three days. After that, senators were allowed two days of questioning. A total of 150 questions were passed to the Chief Justice, who read them aloud to the prosecutors and defenders (The History Place, 2000). Despite the attempts of dismissing the impeachment case for the lack of merit, based on the growing approval ratings of the President, the case continued. Because of the sufficient records from the Starr Report and investi- gations, and because of strong objections from the Democrats to call any witnesses, the number of witnesses, from the original 15, went down to just 2: Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal (The History Place, 2000). Monica Lewinsky was not called up to witness but was questioned by House prosecutors (not the defense) behind closed doors instead (The History Place, 2000).
26 SOURCES
And because neither of those testimonies or witnesses brought an- ything new to the trial, the Senate moved onto the closing arguments on February 8th:
The President’s defense: “There is only one question be- fore you, albeit a difficult one, one that is a question of fact and law and constitutional theory. Would it put at risk the liberties of the people to retain the President in office? Putting aside partisan animus, if you can hon- estly say that it would not, that those liberties are safe in his hands, then you must vote to acquit." (The History Place, 2000).
The Chief Prosecutor: “A failure to convict will make the statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious...We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the President...And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, let right be done." (The History Place, 2000).
After that, on February 9th, the Senate remained closed from the public view for the next three days, with closed-door deliberations with 15 minutes floor time for each senator.
Then, finally, on February 12th, 1999, the final voting took place. To no-one’s surprise, both articles of impeachment were rejected. Article I, Perjury in the Grand Jury, had 55 “Not guilty” votes, with 10 republican senators voting to acquit the President. Article II, Obstruction of Justice, failed in a 50 - 50 vote, with 5 republican senators voting against their party line (The CNN, 1999). And thus, the impeachment process of William J. Clinton has ended, with the President being acquitted and remaining in office.
27 SOURCES
3.7 The aftermath of William J. Clinton’s impeachment
A couple of hours after the final vote, Bill Clinton once again apologized to the American people, saying how “... profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress and on the American people." (The History Place, 2000). Vice president Al Gore, who during the final stages of the impeach- ment started pulling away from the president and eyed his own possibil- ity of running, was no longer projected to win Florida over George W. Bush, and subsequently, his potential presidential run in 2000, has failed. (Neyfakh, 2018).
As seen in Attachment A, the conclusion of the impeachment process also did not negatively affect the President’s approval ratings whatso- ever.
In January 2020, over two decades after the initial Starr Report, Ken- neth Starr partially retracted some of the allegations he made to justify the widely opposed Clinton impeachment (Stahl, 2020).
Another effect of the impeachment process was that the President’s wife, Hillary R. Clinton, gained enormous popularity during and after the proceedings. During the midterms that year, Hillary Clinton was used by the democrats for the campaign trails more than Bill Clinton himself (Neyfakh, 2018). She was later elected as a Senator of New York. She later also attempted to run for the office of the President of the United States herself, multiple times.
In conclusion, as widely accepted, the entire impeachment process not only didn’t end up hurting the Clinton presidency, but in effect helped him gain popularity and support from the general public, and even from some members of the Republican Party. And although the scandal con- sumed a great part of his presidency, it did not disrupt the government in such a great deal, that it would be condemned by the public or cause a lockdown or the government’s functionality.
28 SOURCES
4 Impeachment of Donald J. Trump
The impeachment process of the current president, Donald J. Trump, is very much different from the previous one. While the Clinton impeach- ment revolved mainly around his personal affairs and their effect on core American values, alongside with him lying about those personal affairs under oath, the case built around Donald J. Trump is of a completely dif- ferent nature. The case claiming foreign interference in the country, abuse of power in the President’s attempts to dismiss investigators and officials, withholding military aid from Ukraine, and ordering officials to obstruct justice, was from the beginning of a much more serious nature than the impeachment of Bill Clinton. The following chapters will at- tempt to highlight the key moments before, during, and after the process.
4.1 The Russia probe
The starting point for the probe was the actions of George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during Trump’s campaign in 2016. During his evening in a London bar with an Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, George Papadopoulos disclosed to him that Russia has political dirt on Hillary Clinton, back then still Trump’s opponent in the 2016 presidential elections (LaFraniere, 2017). When the leaked emails started appearing online, Australian offi- cials passed the intelligence about Mr. Papadopoulos’ statements to the American officials (LaFraniere, 2017). Furthermore, after the remarks of Julian Assange, a well-known opponent of Hillary Clinton foreshadowed the release of those emails and mentioned that the Democratic National Committee might have been hacked on multiple occasions (Savage, 2016), the F.B.I. began to open the investigation in July 2016. The goal of the investigation was to find out about Russia’s attempts to meddle in the election and if Donald Trump or any of his associates conspired with this interference (LaFraniere, 2017).
The Investigation called Crossfire Hurricane, which started in July 2016, initially targeted several people from the campaign team of Donald Trump: previously mentioned George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Roger Stone (Apuzzo, 2018). Because of the
29 SOURCES upcoming election, and the possible influence that making the investiga- tion becoming public would have on the results, the F.B.I. kept the ongo- ing investigation top secret. However, after the increasing pressure from the public and after the elections, on March 20th, 2017, James B. Comey, director of the F.B.I., authorized by the Department of Justice is investi- gating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, including the associates of the Trump Campaign (Apuzzo, 2017). Because the investigation was still open and ongoing, he did not dis- close any more information. The administration’s reaction was denial, calling it “fake news” and a “witch hunt”. James Comey further mentioned that the department has no information supporting the allegations from Donald Trump, that he was wiretapped by the prior administration. Shortly after, on May 9th, 2017, the Director of the F.B.I., James Comey, was dismissed by President Trump on the recommendation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions (Shear, 2017). During the next days, the White House, Attorney General, and the President gave often conflicting and contradicting statements as to why the director has been dismissed, which not only did not achieve to stop the investigation but also alarmed the general public in what was widely seen as an attempt of the President to protect himself (Lee, 2017). The act was also often being compared to the Watergate scandal and President Nixon’s firing of Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor in charge of investigating the burglary that was be- hind the scandal and ended with Nixon’s resignation (Baker, 2017).
After this unexpected dismissal, the Democratic Party immediately started the efforts to create a special counsel to continue the Russia in- vestigations. Congressional support for appointing an independent pros- ecutor from both Democrats and Republicans began to rise strongly (Carlsen, 2017) and despite the White House’s efforts to dismiss the calls for an independent counsel, claiming it was not necessary and it was “time to move on” (Easley, 2017), the investigation was far from over. On May 17th, 2017, the special counsel Robert S. Mueller, was appointed to oversee the Russia investigation.
30 SOURCES
4.2 The investigation of Robert S. Mueller
Robert S. Mueller, who served as a director of the Federal Bureau of In- vestigation from 2001 to 2013, was appointed to serve as a special coun- sel for the United States Department of Justice. Rod Rosenstein ap- pointed Robert Mueller to oversee the investigation into alleged Russian influence on the 2016 presidential elections and was tasked to either find or dismiss any links between Donald Trump or his campaign associates and the Russian government (The New York Times, 2017). This decision has been widely supported by both Democrats and Republicans, seeing Mueller as a great choice for the special counsel of the already ongoing investigation. As stated in the previous chapter, George Papadopoulos was the starting point of the whole investigation. And even after the newly ap- pointed independent counsel took over the investigation, the focus did not shift away from him. Soon after the new team of investigators began, on October 30th, 2017, George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to a charge of lying to the F.B.I. about his contacts with Russian officials (McCool, 2020; Sullivan, 2017). His guilty plea was followed by attempts to distance Donald Trump from any connection with George Papadopoulos and the White House’s attempts to portray him as a “coffee boy” (Vazquez, 2017). Those actions seemed to become a pattern with all of the many following ad- missions of guilt and criminal charges of anyone connected to the cam- paign of Donald Trump or later of the Trump administration. In the following months, Robert Mueller’s systematic, thorough in- vestigation of hundreds of individuals and companies has resulted in an immense amount of criminal proceedings: by the end of the investiga- tion, against 34 people in total. Out of those 34, 7 were U.S. nationals, 26 Russian nationals, and one Dutch national. Furthermore, 3 Russia-based companies were charged as well. The final version of the Mueller Report was submitted to Attorney General William Barr on March 22nd, 2019, almost two years after the beginning of Mueller’s investigation (Breun- inger, 2019). The vast report, divided into two volumes, has brought substantial confusion. The report concluded that Russian interference happened in a sweeping and systematic fashion and violated the U.S. criminal law (Inskeep, 2019). However, it also did not prove any collusion.
31 SOURCES
“In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shield away. Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.” (Mueller, 2019)
After the release of the report, Robert Mueller repeatedly underlined that his report should neither convict nor acquit President Trump of any collusion, crimes, or conspiracy. He was simply laying out all the facts, and it was just and only up to Congress, to either follow his investigations and indict the President in the possible impeachment proceedings, or not. However, he considered his job complete (Cassidy, 2019). A couple of days later, he resigned as a special counsel and that the office would be shut down, saying that the report is his testimony (The New York Times, 2019).
“And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the pres- ident did commit a crime.” (The New York Times, 2019)
However, despite the number of the report’s findings and charges around the President, the report was still not enough for the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to initiate the impeachment process. But she did release the following statement:
“Special Counsel Mueller’s report paints a disturbing picture of a president who has been weaving a web of deceit, lies, and improper behavior and acting as if the law doesn’t apply to him. But if you hadn’t read the re- port and listened only to Mr. Barr, you wouldn’t have known any of that because Mr. Barr has been so mis- leading.” (Pelosi, 2019)
32 SOURCES
With this statement, two key elements explaining Pelosi’s next steps can be observed. First, the more obvious condemned of Donald Trump’s administration behavior. Second, she points out that not only the inves- tigation and the entire process does not have the support of the Justice Department with William Barr in the lead, but that it’s actively working against it, misleading the public and trying to undermine the investiga- tion. In such conditions, it might be too risky to begin the impeachment proceedings. However, that situation would not last for long.
4.3 The phone call
Even before the long-awaited release of the Mueller Report, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, resisted efforts by many House Democrats to begin the impeachment process. And even after the release of the report, she kept the cries to impeach the President under control. But her stance from trying to hold back the impeachment pro- cess soon changed to being the main driving force behind the 2019 im- peachment. All that because of the President’s most famous phone call. On July 25th, 2019, one day after Robert Mueller testified before Congress about his report, Donald J. Trump called the newly elected President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, to congratulate him on his victory. But that soon transitioned to, what is now known as, the request of a quid pro quo, a favor for a favor. Donald Trump requested the President to open two investigations, that would damage the most likely Democratic Presidential Nominee, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden. He also confirmed that the Attorney General William Barr and his personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani would be involved in those investigations. In return, Donald Trump would repay the favors by providing military aid to Ukraine and a White House visit for President Zelensky (Katyal, 2019, 45-47). This phone call became public in August 2019, because of an anonymous whistleblower complaint (Wolf, 2019).
4.4 The Trump-Ukraine scandal
Although the original whistleblower complaint was initially withheld from going public or being forwarded to Congress by the Director of Na- tional Intelligence, Joseph Maguire, who later told members of the House
33 SOURCES
Intelligence Committee, that he consulted with the White House after re- ceiving the report (Desiderio, 2019). However, reporters began publish- ing stories on what information was included in the report (Katyal, 2019). All efforts of the White House to dismiss the whistleblower’s com- plaint became obsolete, after a bizarre interview of Andrew Cuomo and Rudolph Giuliani on CNN. Giuliani said he did not ask Ukraine to investi- gate Joe Biden, and 26 seconds later contradicted himself saying “of course I did ask Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden” (Mazza, 2019). On September 24th, 2019, the Senate passed a resolution requesting the full whistleblower’s report. On the same day, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to no longer hold back the calls for the impeachment of President Donald Trump and announced that she would begin the im- peachment inquiry.
4.5 The case against Donald J. Trump
Nancy Pelosi announced directing six committees of the House of Repre- sentatives to begin the formal impeachment inquiry, oversight, and other related matters (Przybyla, 2019). The calls from impeachment have come from both the American public and the House Democrats as well. The President’s approval ratings were also working in favor of the Dem- ocratic Party (see Attachment B). In the following weeks, the Congressional Committees would launch a full-scale investigation of President Trump allegedly betraying his oath of office, national security, and the integrity of the country’s elections (Fandos, 2019). In one of the most significant testimonies of the impeachment inquiry, Ambassador in Ukraine Bill Taylor said that the U.S. military aid to Ukraine was explicitly tied to the investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden (Becket, 2019). The following day, during another testimony of Laura Cooper, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian affairs, members of the Republican Party stormed the secure room where the testimony in front of the Intelligence Committee was supposed to take place, violating the House rules (Moe, 2019). After the disruption, Laura Cooper testified that the President had directed to hold the military aid from Ukraine and that Ukraine knew of stalling the aid far earlier than the White House claimed (Smith, 2019).
34 SOURCES
In the meantime, the President, his administration, and the White House stayed in denial of the whole situation on the impeachment proceedings, disregarding every evidence, witness, testimony, subpoenas, and requests to cooperate with the investigation (BBC, 2019). With further testimonies of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, and Jennifer Williams, and even the Republican-requested witnesses Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison on November 19th provided testimonies confirming the allegations against the President and moved the impeachment inquiry forward (Rocha, 2019). In the meantime, the President resorted to personal attacks against the witnesses ahead, during, and after the testimonies (Duster, 2019). On November 25th, 2019, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, in charge of most of the hearings and testimonies, Adam Schiff stated that the impeachment inquiry will be forwarded to the House Judiciary Committee (CNN, 2019) and on December 3rd, 2019, the Intelligence Committee voted 13 to 9, along the party lines, on sending the 300-page report broken down into two sections (Ukraine and Obstruction of Congress) to the House Judiciary Committee, setting grounds for the impeachment (Raju, 2019; Blitzer, 2019). This report would later become the core of the articles of impeachment.
4.6 The impeachment process of Donald J. Trump
On December 5th, 2019, based on the report received from the Intelli- gence Committee, Nancy Pelosi authorized the Judiciary Committee to create a draft of the articles of impeachment. On December 18th, the ar- ticles of impeachment were presented to the House. The final form of the impeachment contained only two articles: Article I - Abuse of Power Article II - Obstruction of Congress (Congress.gov, 2019)
On December 18th, 21 years after the previous vote on impeach- ment, the House proceeded to vote on which articles would be further sent to the Senate. The first article passed 229 to 195 votes, with 2 Dem- ocrats voting against it.
35 SOURCES
The second article passed as well with 228 votes to 195 with 3 Dem- ocrats voting against it. (Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representa- tives, 2019). Thus, the President of the United States has been impeached once again. However, unlike the previous impeachment vote in 1998, not a single member of the Republican Party diverted and voted against, in support of the articles. This situation, like in the previous Senate trial, showed that the possibility of actually convicting the President in the Senate is incredibly low. Despite having the support of the public, the seeming impenetrability of the Republican Party was a huge factor in fa- vor of the president. And just like his predecessor, who had the unshaken support of the public, Donald J. Trump had the unshaken support of his party. And as previously, the President was on a road to a full acquittal in the Republican-controlled Senate.
4.7 The Senate trial of Donald J. Trump
Even before the House vote on the impeachment articles, the Senate ma- jority leader, Mitchell McConnel, declared that he is not only refusing to be impartial but even that he would be “in total coordination with the White House counsel’s office and Trump’s representatives” and that there was “no chance that the Senate would convict Trump and remove him from office” (Blake, 2019). And although the Senate convicting the President was very unlikely even before those statements with the Republicans having a majority in the Senate, after McConnel’s statements, it seemed impossible. Nevertheless, the articles made their way through the House. However, before transmitting the articles to the Senate, Nancy Pelosi tried to negotiate an agreement with McConnel about witnesses and additional evidence. But the Senate Majority Leader remained opposed to any negotiations and declined. Thus, on January 15th, 2020, the articles have been forwarded to the Senate (Caygle, 2020).
The Senate trial from January 16th, to February 5th, took 20 days in total, almost the same time as the trial of Bill Clinton. But the nature of the trial was very different from the start. The House members that served as managers, were Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Zoe Lofgren,
36 SOURCES
Hakeem Jeffries, Val Demings, Jason Crow, and Sylvia Garcia (Pelosi, 2020). The defense of Donald Trump was Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow, the very well known figure from the previous impeachment trial, Kenneth Starr, Alan Dershowitz, Pam Bondi, Jane Raskin, Eric Herschmann, Robert Ray, Patrick F. Philbin, and Michael Purpura (Kumar, 2020). During the opening statements, in which the Democrats presented the evidence from the House investigations and made a case of justifying the impeachment and the President’s removal from office, the Republican part of the trial was doing whatever they saw fit to ridicule, disrupt, interrupt and degrade the trial (Gregorian, 2020). The President’s defense team argued that the case was lacking evidence and accused the Democrats of using the impeachment as a tool to steal the 2020 elections. Later on, the Republican defense team started counterattacking by accusing Joe Biden and Hunter Biden of their alleged crimes and denied any wrongdoing of the President (Dzhanova, 2020).
The main part of the trial, later on, revolved around whether to issue a subpoena for the former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, who was ready to testify in the Senate. However, on January 31st, the Senate voted against any witnesses in 51 to 49 votes, with only 2 Republican senators voting in favor (Herb, 2020). And thus, without the possibility to provide further evidence or witnesses, on February 3rd, 2020, the closing arguments were delivered. After the closing remarks, on February 5th, the final voting took place. Once again, both articles of impeachment were rejected. Article I, Abuse of Power, had 52 “Not guilty” votes to 48 “Guilty” votes, with only a single Republican, senator Mitt Romney voting in favor. Article II, Obstruction of Congress, failed with a vote completely in party lines, 47 “Guilty” to 53 “Not guilty” (Fandos, 2020). And thus, the impeachment process of Donald J. Trump has ended, with the President being acquitted and remaining in office.
37 SOURCES
4.8 The aftermatch of Donald J. Trump’s impeachment
The day after the acquittal, President Trump boasted his victory and de- feat of the “impeachment hoax” and attacking the newspapers, Mitt Rom- ney, James Comey, Robert Mueller, and the House Democrats (Sobey, 2020). Immediately after, Donald Trump also fired two of the witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, seeking revenge on those who testified against him (Wagner, 2020). As seen in Attachment B, the conclusion of the impeachment process also did not negatively affect the President’s approval ratings. The impeachment process was widely viewed not only on television but also streamed and followed on social media such as Facebook, Twit- ter, and YouTube. The impeachment process, along with most of the Donald Trump’s administration, also showed the increasing hostility, polarization, and to- tal inability to cooperate between the two parties, with partisan lines be- ing firmly set. What might be seen as one of the results (although being widely dis- rupted by the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic and it’s handling of the ad- ministration and the President), is the President’s inability to succeed in a following presidential race of 2020 and losing the office to the one per- son Donald Trump was trying to get investigated in Ukraine: Joe Biden.
38 SOURCES
5 Comparison of Clinton’s and Trump’s impeachments
As outlined in the previous chapters, the two impeachment proceedings, which happened two decades apart, had both many great differences and similarities. This chapter will highlight, compare, and explain the most significant ones. Starting with the differences.
The first difference that comes up, should be the very root of the im- peachment process, even before the word “impeachment” was first used in the matter. In the case of Bill Clinton, the roots of Kenneth Starr’s in- vestigation, which stretched for almost 10 years, starting with the White- water controversy, were long before he even considered running for the President’s office. Alongside the investigation, the personal affairs, that became a major part of the impeachment, also took place before and also after becoming the President. In the case of Donald Trump, the immedi- ate focus for the initial investigation was connected to the presidential campaign in 2016 prior to the elections and continued for the next 3 years. The focus of the investigations and probes into both presidencies were also very different. While in the case of Donald Trump, the focus was on his actions as a President of the United States and his possible collusion with the powers of other nations, the investigation surrounding Bill Clinton was mostly around his private life and affairs and was based on moral grounds. Those factors also resulted in the tipping point of both cases, decid- ing about the nature of the impeachment. The term “top-down” impeach- ment could be used in the case of 1998 when the loudest voices support- ing the impeachment were the Special Counsel Kenneth Starr and the Speaker of the House Newt Gingrinch, while the American public was not supportive of the impeachment proceedings. However, during 2018 and 2019, it was the exact opposite. Special Counsel Robert Mueller remained completely impartial for the whole duration of the investigation, and even after releasing the Mueller Report remained impartial, neither sup- porting nor denying impeachment, leaving the decision entirely up to Congress. Meanwhile, in Congress, the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was trying to contain the efforts to start the impeachment process, only until the developments of the Trump-Zelensky phone call in 2019.
39 SOURCES
Both reports, the Starr Report and the Mueller Report are also worth mentioning. While the investigation of Kenneth Starr, often called “the fishing expedition”, was trying to cover the widest possible scope around the President, it did not end up resulting in a single criminal charge, ex- cept the charges against President Clinton, all including his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. On the other hand, the report of Robert Mueller, despite often portrayed as a “witch hunt”, brought forward 34 criminal proceedings, many of them resulting in jail time, fines, or even deporta- tion from the country. And only in one of those cases, the report became the backbone of the impeachment process. While for the case against Bill Clinton, the Starr Report was sufficient on pushing the impeachment pro- cess all the way to the Senate, Mueller’s Report was merely an occasional point of reference and did not begin the impeachment proceedings at all.
After the impeachment process started in both cases, the differences still vastly outnumbered the similarities. The beginnings of the impeach- ment, forming the committees, investigations, testimonies, and proceed- ing to form the articles of impeachment, are only a part of those differ- ences. While in 1998, the Starr Report served almost as a handbook throughout the whole process in the House, in 2019, the investigation just began with the committees of the House. There were intense hear- ings and testimonies for both sides in 2019, while in 1998 the House wanted to proceed with the impeachment as fast as possible because of the majority in both chambers, which was challenged during the election and the Republican party lost six seats in the House and had no gain in the Senate. The Senate, responsible for holding the trial after the impeachment passes through the House, also looked very differently during the two instances. Despite the procedural differences, like the form of taking the questions, voting on whether call or not call witnesses, and the widely criticized - in some cases deemed unconstitutional - behavior of Mitchell McConnel (Damante, 2019), the behavior during the trial and the follow- ing vote in 2020 was partisan and completely polarizing. The final differences might be seen in the President’s stance imme- diately after the acquittance. While Bill Clinton apologized for his actions despite being acquitted, managed to not only unite his party but even gain support from the members of the Republican party, Donald Trump
40 SOURCES scaled up his attacks on the media, the House Democrats or even the Sen- ate Republican Mitt Romney, followed by the immediate firing of multi- ple individuals that testified against him.
And although there are not that many similarities between the two impeachments, it is also worth pointing out those that can be observed. For example, although Bill Clinton did have overall higher approval ratings of the American public than Donald Trump, the impeachment proceedings did not seem to affect either of them, not only after the im- peachment was over, but even during the process. Another common ground for the impeachment was definitely the composition of the House of Representatives. It is a crucial aspect, of the political party staring the impeachment, to have a majority in the House in order to achieve anything with initiating the impeachment process, otherwise, it will only hurt the party in a desperate attempt to push an impeachment process that is doomed to be stopped right from the start. Such common ground was key for both the impeachment initiated by both Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich. Another important similarity, perhaps the most significant one, is the very end of the process. In neither case, the President was convicted and removed from office. That raises a stinging question if all the previ- ous factors are effectively pointless. How come, that the two impeach- ment processes, so vastly different and completely distinct and con- trasting from start to finish, end up in the exact same result? Did both of these impeachments even bring anything? The answer to these questions lies in two places. In the case of Bill Clinton, that place is history. In the case of Donald Trump, that place is the future. As seen in the Clinton case, only after the years that have passed, it is safe to say, that the entirety of the impeachment efforts is seen more as a failure for the Republican party, than for the President himself. In the case of Donald Trump, it can yet not be concluded. Already with the starting discussion of the possible prosecution of Donald Trump after leaving office (Pilkington, 2020), only time will tell if the long-term after- math of the impeachment will be yet another difference between the two presidents, or a similarity.
41 SOURCES
6 Conclusion
The impeachment process in the United States, which can be conducted against its highest elected official, the President of the United States, is at the very core of the American Constitution. It serves as one of the key elements of checks and balances and creates a sort of an emergency break in case the President would either seek to dismantle the demo- cratic system in the country, would be seen as unfit to continue in the office, or would attempt to benefit himself while harming the people of the country. This is how the impeachment process was viewed from the beginning of the state’s existence in 1776, as an attempt to divert from a monarchy and the often uncontrollable power of the King. And longer than 2 centuries later, this tool has been used for the first time in an at- tempt to control a democratically elected President of the United States. This thesis aimed to analyze and explain the process, from its foun- dation to the first times being implemented against an elected President. This scenario took place only two times in the history of the country, ex- cluding the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, who was only elected Vice- President but took office after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and further excluding the 37th President Richard Nixon, against whom the impeachment process never began due to his resignation. That leaves only two instances, that of William J. Clinton in 1998/1999 and Donald J. Trump in 2019/2020. Both of these stories are very complicated, entangled with many conflicting statements, lies, and equivocates. Nevertheless, those stories are still not only possible to follow, but worth following. Both impeach- ment processes took a huge role in shaping the presidency of both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, and inevitably shaping the country itself. Therefore, the thesis aimed to explain everything that lies behind those processes and their development. In the first part, it created grounds by explaining the origins of im- peachment itself, its procedures, possibilities, and why it might seem like a not completely specified part of the Constitution, and how that can serve as a good thing. Then it moved onto the individual impeachments. Beginning with exposing the whole background of prior events, offering what were often forgotten or disregarded stories, which still play a vital role in the im-
42 SOURCES peachment process itself, because they help to explain the motives, sup- ports or objections, and even help predict the outcome of the whole pro- cedure. They also help explain and expound the motives of individuals in the process, which, after all, are often the ones changing the course of history. Then, following the impeachment process from the beginning to its end, the thesis gathered information and provided an explanation about the procedure followed by the results. The results are not only simply “did the impeachment happen, yes or no”, but also the impacts they had on the subjects of the process. In the final part, the thesis offers a rare comparison of the key events and elements of those scarce impeachments, highlighting the most im- portant differences and similarities. By doing so, it outlines how, despite their vast differences in the entirety of the process, they ended up with similar results and acquittance of the President, although such result might yet to be seen as not a final step of the process. The final part also contains answers for all three initially stated questions: • What are the key differences between Clinton’s and Trump’s impeachment? • How come both presidents got acquitted in the Senate? • Was the impeachment process failed and in vain, or did it still make a difference? Understandably, the thesis is unable to give a definitive answer to the last question in the case of Trump’s presidency, as hinted by the story Pilkington in 2020. Instead, it’s only able to offer mere speculation of what the following months, years, or even decades, might hold in stock.
43 SOURCES
Sources
Apuzzo, Matt. 2017. „F.B.I. Is Investigating Trump’s Russia Ties, Comey Confirms“. The New York Times. Online. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investigation-trump- russia-comey.html
Apuzzo, Matt. 2018. „Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation.“. The New York Times. Online. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/politics/crossfire-hurricane- trump-russia-fbi-mueller-investigation.html
Baker, Peter. 2017. „In Trump’s Firing of James Comey, Echoes of Watergate“. The New York Times. Online. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/trump-fbi-investigation- nixon.html
BBC. 2019. „White House ‘will not co-operate with impeachment inquiry’“. Online. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49981806
Becket, Stefan. 2019. „Top diplomat tells lawmakers Ukraine aid was directly tied to investigations“. CBS News. Online. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-taylor-opening-statement-read-the- full-text-of-the-top-us-diplomats-statement-to-congress/
Blake, Aaron. 2019. „McConnel indicates he’ll let Trump’s lawyers dictate Trump’s impeachment trial“. The Washington Post. Online. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/13/mcconnell-says- hell-let-trumps-white-house-dictate-trumps-impeachment-trial/
Blitzer, Ronn. 2019. „House Democrats vote to adopt Trump impeachment report, blast cheme to ‘solicit foreign interference’ in 2020 race“. Fox News. Online. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-intel-committee-trump- impeachment-report-vote
Breuninger, Kevin. 2019. „MUELLER PROBE ENDS: Special counsel submits Russia report to Attorney General William Barr“. CNBC. Online. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/22/robert-mueller-submits-special- counsels-russia-probe-report-to-attorney-general-william-barr.html
Broder, John M. 1998. „Starr Finds a Case for Impeachment in Perjury, Obstruction, Tampering“.The New York Times. Online.
44 SOURCES https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/politics/091298clint on-rdp.html
Carlsen, Audrey. 2017. „How Every Lawmaker Has Reacted to Comey’s Firing So Far“. The New York Times. Online. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/10/us/politics/congress- statements-comey.html
Cassidy, John. 2019. „Rober Mueller Says It’s Up To Congress To Indict a President“. The New Yorker. Online. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/robert-mueller-says-its- up-to-congress-to-indict-a-president
Caygle, Heather. 2020. „Pelosi ends standoff with Senate Republicans over impeachment articles“. Politico. Online. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pelosi-to-send-impeachment- articles-to-senate-after-weeks-long-delay-097185
CNN. 1999. „How the senators voted on impeachment“. Online. https://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.vote/
CNN. 2019. „READ: Adam Schiff letter to lawmakers laying out path forward for impeachment inquiry“. Online. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/25/politics/adam-schiff-letter- impeachment-timeline/index.html
Crowley, Candy. 1998. „House clears way for impeachment inquiry“. CNN. Online. https://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/10/08/impeachment.ad vancer/
Damante, Becca. 2019. „Mitch McConnel Ignores the Senate’s Constitutional Duty in Impeachment“. Constitutional Accountability Center. Online. https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/mitch-mcconnell-ignores-the- senates-constitutional-duty-in-impeachment
Desiderio, Andrew. 2019. „’This is unprecedented’: Intel chief defends withholding whistleblower complaint“. Politico. Online. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/26/joseph-maguire-testimony- trump-whistleblower-1514165
Duster, Chandelis. 2019. „Trump lashes out at State Department employee ahead of public testimony“. CNN. Online. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/17/politics/donald-trump-attacks- jennifer-williams-never-trumper/index.html
45 SOURCES
Dzhanova, Yelena. 2020. „Trump impeachment trial: Defense wraps up oral arguments, urges Senate to acquit the president“. CNBC. Online. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/28/trump-impeachment-trial-defense- wraps-up-case-for-acquittal.html
Easley, Jonathan. 2017. „White House spokesperson: ‘Time to move on’ from Russia probe“. The Hill. Online. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/332669-white-house- spokesperson-time-to-move-on-from-russia-probes
Engelberg, Stephen. 1994. “The Nation; Untangling the Threads Of the Whitewater Affair”. The New York Times. Online. https://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/13/weekinreview/the-nation- untangling-the-threads-of-the-whitewater-affair.html
Fandos, Nicholas. 2019. „Nancy Pelosi Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry of Trump“. The New York Times. Online. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/democrats- impeachment-trump.html
Fandos, Nicholas. 2020. „Trump Acquitted of Two Impeachment Charges in Near Party-Line Vote“. The New York Times. Online. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/us/politics/trump-acquitted- impeachment.html
Gallup News. „Presidential Approval Ratings – Bill Clinton“. Online. https://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill- clinton.aspx
Gates, Anita and Seelye, Q. Katharine. 2020. “Linda Tripp, Key Figure in Clinton Impeachment, Dies at 70”. The New York Times. Online. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/us/politics/linda-tripp-dead.html
Gerth, Jeff. 1992. “The 1992 Campaign: Personal Finances; Clintons Joined S.&L. Operator in an Ozark Real-Estate Venture“. The New York Times. Online. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/us/1992-campaign-personal- finances-clintons-joined-s-l-operator-ozark-real-estate.html
Gibbs, Nancy. 1998. „Fall Of The House Of Newt“. The Time. Online. https://web.archive.org/web/20100821035730/http://www.time.com/time /magazine/article/0,9171,989559,00.html
Gregorian, Dareh. 2020. „Trump’s Senate impeachment trial: What happened on Day Three“. NBC News. Online. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/trump-s- senate-impeachment-trial-what-happened-day-three-n1121616
46 SOURCES
Herb, Jeremy. 2020. „Senate impeachment trial: Wednesday acquittal vote scheduled after effort to have witnesses fails“. CNN. Online. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/31/politics/senate-impeachment-trial- last-day/index.html
The History Place. 2000. „Presidential Impeachment Proceedings“. Online. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm
Inskeep, Steve. 2019. „Redacted Mueller Report Released; Congress, Trump React“. National Public Radio. Online. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/18/714667960/redacted-mueller-report-is- released
Justia. 1997. „Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)“. Online. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/681/
Kumar, Anita. 2020. „Trump recruits House allies for his defense“. Politico. Online. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/trumps-house-allies-to-help- his-defense-in-senate-101281
Kyvig, David E. 2008. „Past and Present: The Starr Report and Clinton Impeachment“. U.S. News. Online. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/09/11/past-and-present- the-starr-report-and-clinton-impeachment
LaFraniere, Sharon. 2017. „How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt“. The New York Times. Online. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia- investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html
Lee, Michelle Ye Hee. 2017. „All of the White House’s conflicting explanations for Comey’s firing: A timeline“. The Washington Post. Online. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/12/all- of-the-white-houses-conflicting-explanations-for-comeys-firing-a-timeline/
Mazza, Ed. 2019. „Rudy Giuliani Melts Down On Live TV In Bizarre Chris Cuomo Interview“. Huffpost. Online. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chris-cuomo-rudy-giuliani-joe- biden_n_5d8451bce4b0957256b44039
McCool, Grant. 2020. „Timeline: Big moments in Mueller investigatio of Russian meddling in 2016 U.S. election“. Reuters. Online. https://uk.reuters.com/article/instant-article/idUSKCN1UI278
47 SOURCES
Moe, Alex. 2019. „Laura Cooper, Pentagon official overseeing Ukraine, testifies in impeachment inquiry after GOP delay“. NBC News. Online. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/laura- cooper-pentagon-official-overseeing-ukraine-testifies-impeachment-inquiry- n1070586
Neumann, Richard K. 2007. „The Revival of Impeachment as a Partisan Political Weapon“. Hofstra University. Online. https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/679/
The New York Times. 2017. „Rod Rosenstein’s Letter Appointing Mueller Special Counsel“. Online. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/politics/document- Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html
The New York Times. 2019. „Full Transcript of Mueller’s Statement on Russia Investigation“. Online. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-transcript.html
Oxford LibGuides: Legal history: England & common law tradition: Treason https://libguides.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/c.php?g=422806&p=3424852
Pilkington, Ed. 2020. „How real is the threat of prosecution for Donald Trump post-presidency?“. The Guardian. Online. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/25/donald-trump- prosecution-post-presidency
Politico. 2008. „Where are the impeachment managers today?“. Online. https://www.politico.com/story/2008/12/where-are-the-impeachment- managers-today-016628
Przybyla, Heidi. 2019. „Nancy Pelosi announces formal impeachment inquiry of Trump“. NBC News. Online. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/pelosi- announce-formal-impeachment-inquiry-trump-n1058251
Raju, Manu. 2019. „House Democrats vote to send impeachment report to Judiciary Committee“. CNN. Online. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/03/politics/house-intelligence-committee- report/index.html
Ray, Robert. 2000. „Final Report of the Independent Counsel of Matters Related to the White House Travel Office“. Online. https://web.archive.org/web/20070628181403/http://a255.g.akamaitech.n et/7/255/2422/13may20041504/icreport.access.gpo.gov/watkins/2-6.pdf
48 SOURCES
Rempel, William C. 1993. „Troopers Say Clinton Sought Silence on Personal Affairs“. Los Angeles Times. Online. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-12-21-mn-4179-story.html
Rocha, Veronica. 2019. „Four key impeachment witnesses testify“. CNN. Online. https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-hearing-11-19- 19/h_fcef5e3a2b318f1fee6c3405a9b80d06
Savage, Charlie. 2016. „Assange, Avowed Foe of Clinton, Timed Email Release for Democratic Convention“. The New York Times. Online. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed- wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.html
Shear, Michael D. 2017. „F.B.I. Director James Comey Is Fired by Trump“. The New York Times. Online. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/james-comey-fired- fbi.html
Smith, David. 2019. „Ukraine knew of stalled aid far earlier than White House claims, official testifies“. The Guardian. Online. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/20/trump-impeachment- testimony-laura-cooper-ukraine-aid
Sobey, Rick. 2020. „Trump takes a victory lap, blasting Democrats on impeachment and calling out Russiagate“. Boston Herald. Online. https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/02/06/donald-trump-takes-victory- lap-blasting-democrats-and-swearing-during-white-house-speech/
Stahl, Jeremy. 2020. „Ken Starr Argues There Are Too Many Impeachments These Days“. Slate. Online. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/clinton-independent-counsel- ken-starr-argues-against-impeachment.html
Sullivan, Eileen. 2017. „George Papadopoulos, First to Plead Guilty in Russia Inquiry“. The New York Times. Online. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/george-papadopoulos- russia-trump.html Treason Against the United States. 1861. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1861/01/25/archives/treason-against-the- united-states.html
Vazquez, Maegan. 2017. „Ex-Trump campaign adviser: Papadopoulos was just a ‘coffee boy’ „. CNN. Online. https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/31/politics/caputo-papadopoulos-coffee- boy-cnntv/index.html
49 SOURCES
Wagner, John. 2020. „Trump fires Gordon Sondland, the second impeachment witness to be removed from his post Friday”. The Washington Post. Online. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-live- updates/2020/02/07/8e7668a6-4998-11ea-bdbf-1dfb23249293_story.html
The Washington Post. 1997. „Clinton v. Jones Timeline“. Online. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/politics/special/pjones/timeline.htm
The Washington Post. 1998. „Declaration of Paula Jones“. Online. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/jonesdec031398.htm
The Washington Post. 1998. „The Starr Report“. Online. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/icreport.htm
The Washington Post. 1999. „Defense Who’s Who“. Online. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/politics/special/clinton/defense.htm
Wolf, Zachary B. 2019. „The whistleblower complaint, annotated“. CNN. Online. https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/09/politics/whistleblower- complaint-annotated/
Other
Congress.gov. 1998. „H. Rept. 105-830 – Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States“. Online. https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/105th-congress/house- report/830/
Congress. Gov. 2019. „Articles of Impeachment Against Donald John Trump“. Online. https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755enr.pdf Constitution of the United States
Hamilton, Alexander. 1788. “Federalist No. 65”. Available at: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp Katyal, Neal. 2019. „Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump“. Mariner Books.
Mueller, Robert S. 2019. „Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election“. U.S. Department of Justice.
50 SOURCES
Volume I of II. Online. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. 1998. „Final Vote Results for Roll Call 543“. Online. https://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll543.xml
Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. 1998. „Final Vote Results for Roll Call 544“. Online. https://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll544.xml
Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. 1998. „Final Vote Results for Roll Call 545“. Online. https://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll545.xml
Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. 1998. „Final Vote Results for Roll Call 546“. Online. https://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll546.xml
Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. 2019. „Final Vote Results for Roll Call 695“. Online. https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll695.xml
Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. 2019. „Final Vote Results for Roll Call 696“. Online. https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll696.xml
Pelosi, Nancy. 2019. „Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer: Attorney General Barr Deliberately Distorted Significant Portions Of Special Counsel Mueller’s Report”. Speaker of the House. Online. https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/41819-3
Pelosi, Nancy. 2020. “Pelosi Names Impeachment Managers”. Speaker of the House. Online. https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/11520
Podcasts
Neyfakh, Leon. 2018. „Slate.com. Slow Burn Podcast. Season 2: Clinton.“ Online. https://slate.com/podcasts/slow-burn/s2/clinton
51 SOURCES
Attachment A: Bill Clinton approval ratings
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bill Clinton is handling his job as president? Approve Disapprove No opinion
% % %
2001
2001 Jan 10-14 66 29 5
2001 Jan 5-7 65 31 4
2000
2000 Dec 15-17 66 32 2
2000 Dec 2-4 60 35 5
2000 Nov 13-15 63 33 4
2000 Oct 25-28 57 38 5
2000 Oct 6-9 58 37 5
2000 Sep 11-13 60 34 6
2000 Aug 29-Sep 3 62 35 3
2000 Aug 18-19 62 35 3
2000 Aug 11-12 58 39 3
2000 Aug 4-5 57 40 3
2000 Jul 25-26 57 39 4
2000 Jul 14-15 59 37 4
2000 Jul 6-9 59 36 5
2000 Jun 22-25 55 40 5
2000 Jun 6-7 60 36 4
2000 May 18-21 57 37 6
2000 May 5-7 57 36 7
2000 Apr 28-30 59 39 2
2000 Mar 30-Apr 2 62 34 4
2000 Mar 17-19 56 39 5
52 SOURCES
Approve Disapprove No opinion
% % %
2000 Mar 10-12 63 34 3
2000 Feb 25-27 57 39 4
2000 Feb 14-15 62 34 4
2000 Feb 4-6 63 33 4
2000 Jan 25-26 64 32 4
2000 Jan 17-20 62 35 3
2000 Jan 13-16 59 37 4
2000 Jan 7-10 63 35 2
1999
1999 Dec 20-21 57 36 7
1999 Dec 9-12 56 41 3
1999 Nov 18-21 59 36 5
1999 Nov 4-7 58 38 4
1999 Oct 21-24 59 36 5
1999 Oct 8-10 56 39 5
1999 Sep 23-26 59 38 3
1999 Sep 10-14 60 38 2
1999 Aug 24-26 60 35 5
1999 Aug 16-18 59 36 5
1999 Aug 3-4 60 35 5
1999 Jul 22-25 64 31 5
1999 Jul 16-18 58 38 4
1999 Jul 13-14 59 37 4
1999 Jun 25-27 57 41 2
1999 Jun 11-13 60 37 3
1999 Jun 4-5 60 35 5
1999 May 23-24 53 42 5
1999 May 7-9 60 35 5
1999 Apr 30-May 2 60 36 4
1999 Apr 26-27 60 35 5
53 SOURCES
Approve Disapprove No opinion
% % %
1999 Apr 13-14 60 36 4
1999 Apr 6-7 59 35 6
1999 Mar 30-31 64 32 4
1999 Mar 19-21 64 33 3
1999 Mar 12-14 62 35 3
1999 Mar 5-7 68 28 4
1999 Feb 26-28 66 31 3
1999 Feb 19-21 66 30 4
1999 Feb 12-13 68 30 2
1999 Feb 4-8 65 33 2
1999 Jan 22-24 69 29 2
1999 Jan 15-17 69 29 2
1999 Jan 8-10 67 30 3
1998
1998 Dec 19-20 73 25 2
1998 Dec 15-16 63 33 4
1998 Dec 12-13 64 34 2
1998 Dec 4-6 66 30 4
1998 Nov 20-22 66 30 4
1998 Nov 13-15 66 31 3
1998 Oct 29-Nov 1 66 30 4
1998 Oct 23-25 65 32 3
1998 Oct 9-12 65 32 3
1998 Oct 6-7 63 34 3
1998 Sep 23-24 66 31 3
1998 Sep 14-15 63 35 2
1998 Sep 11-12 63 34 3
1998 Aug 21-23 62 35 3
1998 Aug 10-12 65 30 5
1998 Aug 7-8 64 32 4
54 SOURCES
Approve Disapprove No opinion
% % %
1998 Jul 13-14 63 31 6
1998 Jul 7-8 61 34 5
1998 Jun 22-23 60 34 6
1998 Jun 5-7 60 34 6
1998 May 8-10 64 31 5
1998 Apr 17-19 63 31 6
1998 Mar 20-22 66 28 6
1998 Mar 6-9 63 31 6
1998 Feb 20-22 66 29 5
1998 Feb 13-15 66 30 4
1998 Jan 30-Feb 1 69 28 3
1998 Jan 25-26 59 37 4
1998 Jan 24-25 60 35 5
1998 Jan 23-24 58 36 6
1998 Jan 16-18 60 30 10
1998 Jan 6-7 59 32 9
1997
1997 Dec 18-21 56 36 8
1997 Nov 21-23 61 30 9
1997 Nov 6-9 59 31 10
1997 Oct 27-29 59 32 9
1997 Oct 3-5 55 36 9
1997 Sep 25-28 58 33 9
1997 Sep 6-7 61 28 11
1997 Aug 22-25 60 34 6
1997 Aug 12-13 61 32 7
1997 Jul 25-27 58 34 8
1997 Jun 26-29 55 36 9
1997 May 30-Jun 1 57 35 8
1997 May 6-7 57 35 8
55 SOURCES
Approve Disapprove No opinion
% % %
1997 Apr 18-20 54 37 9
1997 Mar 24-26 59 35 6
1997 Feb 24-26 57 33 10
1997 Jan 30-Feb 2 60 31 9
1997 Jan 10-13 62 31 7
1997 Jan 3-5 58 35 7
56 SOURCES
Attachment B: Donald Trump approval ratings
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president? Approve Disapprove No opinion
% % %
2020
2020 Dec 1-17 39 57 5
2020 Nov 5-19 43 55 2
2020 Oct 16-27 46 52 1
2020 Sep 30-Oct 15 43 55 2
2020 Sep 14-28 46 52 2
2020 Aug 31-Sep 13 42 56 2
2020 Jul 30-Aug 12 42 55 4
2020 Jul 1-23 41 56 3
2020 Jun 8-30 38 57 4
2020 May 28-Jun 4 39 57 4
2020 May 1-13 49 48 3
2020 Apr 14-28 49 47 4
2020 Apr 1-14 43 54 4
2020 Mar 13-22 49 45 6
2020 Mar 2-13 44 52 4
2020 Feb 17-28 47 51 2
2020 Feb 3-16 49 48 3
2020 Jan 16-29 49 50 1
2020 Jan 2-15 44 53 3
2019
2019 Dec 2-15 45 51 3
2019 Nov 1-14 43 54 3
2019 Oct 14-31 41 57 2
57 SOURCES
Approve Disapprove No opinion
% % %
2019 Oct 1-13 39 57 5
2019 Sep 16-30 40 56 3
2019 Sep 3-15 43 54 4
2019 Aug 15-30 39 57 4
2019 Aug 1-14 41 54 5
2019 Jul 15-31 42 54 4
2019 Jul 1-12 44 51 5
2019 Jun 19-30 41 54 5
2019 Jun 3-16 43 55 3
2019 May 15-30 40 55 4
2019 May 1-12 42 52 6
2019 Apr 17-30 46 50 4
2019 Apr 1-9 45 51 4
2019 Mar 1-10 39 57 4
2019 Feb 12-28 43 54 3
2019 Feb 1-10 44 52 4
2019 Jan 21-27 37 59 3
2019 Jan 2-10 37 59 4
2018
2018 Dec 17-22 39 55 5
2018 Dec 10-16 38 57 4
2018 Dec 3-9 40 56 4
2018 Nov 26-Dec 2 40 56 4
2018 Nov 19-25 38 60 3
2018 Nov 12-18 43 53 4
2018 Nov 5-11 38 56 5
2018 Oct 29-Nov 4 40 54 6
2018 Oct 22-28 40 54 6
2018 Oct 15-21 44 50 6
2018 Oct 8-14 44 51 5
58 SOURCES
Approve Disapprove No opinion
% % %
2018 Oct 1-7 43 53 5
2018 Sep 24-30 42 53 5
2018 Sep 17-23 40 56 5
2018 Sep 10-16 38 56 6
2018 Sep 3-9 40 54 5
2018 Aug 27-Sep 2 41 53 6
2018 Aug 20-26 41 54 5
2018 Aug 13-19 42 52 7
2018 Aug 6-12 39 56 5
2018 Jul 30-Aug 5 41 54 5
2018 Jul 23-29 40 55 6
2018 Jul 16-22 42 54 4
2018 Jul 9-15 43 52 4
2018 Jul 2-8 41 56 4
2018 Jun 25-Jul 1 42 53 5
2018 Jun 18-24 41 55 3
2018 Jun 11-17 45 50 4
2018 Jun 4-10 42 54 4
2018 May 28-Jun 3 41 55 4
2018 May 21-27 40 55 6
2018 May 14-20 42 54 5
2018 May 7-13 43 52 5
2018 Apr 30-May 6 42 52 5
2018 Apr 23-29 42 53 5
2018 Apr 16-22 38 57 6
2018 Apr 9-15 39 55 6
2018 Apr 2-8 41 54 5
2018 Mar 26-Apr 1 39 56 5
2018 Mar 19-25 39 55 5
2018 Mar 12-18 40 56 4
59 SOURCES
Approve Disapprove No opinion
% % %
2018 Mar 5-11 39 56 4
2018 Feb 26-Mar 4 39 55 6
2018 Feb 19-25 39 56 5
2018 Feb 12-18 37 59 4
2018 Feb 5-11 40 57 3
2018 Jan 29-Feb 4 40 57 3
2018 Jan 22-28 38 57 5
2018 Jan 15-21 36 59 5
2018 Jan 8-14 38 57 5
2018 Jan 1-7 37 58 4
2017
2017 Dec 25-31 39 55 6
2017 Dec 18-24 37 57 6
2017 Dec 11-17 35 60 5
2017 Dec 4-10 36 59 5
2017 Nov 27-Dec 3 35 59 5
2017 Nov 20-26 37 56 7
2017 Nov 13-19 38 57 6
2017 Nov 6-12 38 56 6
2017 Oct 30-Nov 5 38 58 5
2017 Oct 23-29 35 60 5
2017 Oct 16-22 36 58 6
2017 Oct 9-15 37 57 6
2017 Oct 2-8 38 56 6
2017 Sep 25-Oct 1 37 58 5
2017 Sep 18-24 38 55 6
2017 Sep 11-17 38 57 6
2017 Sep 4-10 37 57 6
2017 Aug 28-Sep 3 36 59 6
2017 Aug 21-27 35 60 5
60 SOURCES
Approve Disapprove No opinion
% % %
2017 Aug 14-20 37 58 6
2017 Aug 7-13 36 58 6
2017 Jul 31-Aug 6 37 58 5
2017 Jul 24-30 38 57 5
2017 Jul 17-23 37 58 5
2017 Jul 10-16 39 56 6
2017 Jul 3-9 38 57 5
2017 Jun 26-Jul 2 39 56 5
2017 Jun 19-25 39 56 5
2017 Jun 12-18 38 57 6
2017 Jun 5-11 37 58 5
2017 May 29-Jun 4 38 56 6
2017 May 22-28 41 54 5
2017 May 15-21 38 56 6
2017 May 8-14 38 56 6
2017 May 1-7 42 53 6
2017 Apr 24-30 41 54 5
2017 Apr 17-23 41 52 7
2017 Apr 10-16 40 54 6
2017 Apr 3-9 40 53 7
2017 Mar 27-Apr 2 38 57 5
2017 Mar 20-26 39 56 6
2017 Mar 13-19 40 55 5
2017 Mar 6-12 42 52 6
2017 Feb 27-Mar 5 43 51 6
2017 Feb 20-26 42 53 5
2017 Feb 13-19 40 54 5
2017 Feb 6-12 41 53 6
2017 Jan 30-Feb 5 43 52 5
2017 Jan 20-29 45 47 8
61 SOURCES
62