Opinion: Reflection on Nixon's Resignation After 50 Years Reveals Weaknesses in Impeachment
There is a lack of compelling evidence and widespread agreement among the public that supports the impeachment of President Joe Biden, according to constitutional scholar Michael Gerhardt
Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has extensive experience in impeachment and is the author of the upcoming book, "The Law of Presidential Impeachment." The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. For more opinions, visit CNN.
In the last 50 years, presidential impeachment has not fared well. In 1974, the Constitution functioned as it should have when President Richard Nixon resigned just before facing certain impeachment in the US House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. With ample evidence of Nixon's misconduct gathered by the House, Senate, and special prosecutor, the majority of the public supported his removal from office.
Michael Gerhardt
Deborah R. Gerhardt
Last Wednesday, Republicans voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, citing unspecified and unproven misconduct. There is no evidence to support this action, and it lacks the necessary public consensus. The process appears to be heavily influenced by partisan motives.
Former President Donald Trump urged House Republicans to impeach President Biden in retaliation for his own impeachments, which he dismissed as politically motivated. Meanwhile, House Democrats have condemned the GOP's actions as an attempt to damage Biden's chances for reelection and divert attention from Trump's legal issues, which include facing indictments for over 90 felonies (which Trump denies). The transformation of the impeachment process from its original purpose in Nixon's case to a tool of partisan politics is not solely due to heightened partisanship, but also to increased tribalism and the experiences of presidents and members of Congress with the impeachment process, as I will detail in my upcoming book.
After Nixon, the presidents faced with impeachment - Bill Clinton and Donald Trump - were unmoved by the mounting pressure for their resignation following allegations of wrongdoing. Both were confident that they would retain the support of their parties and that the senators from their respective parties would not vote to convict them, ultimately leading to their acquittal after trial.
On April 10, 2023, President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, are photographed walking on the South Lawn of the White House during the annual Easter Egg Roll in Washington, DC. The photo credit goes to Oliver Contreras/Sipa USA/AP.
Title: The Transformation of Impeachment: From Past to Present
The impeachment process has evolved significantly over time. In the past, bipartisan committees in the House and Senate conducted months-long investigations before authorizing a formal impeachment inquiry for presidents like Nixon and Clinton. For Trump, intensive fact-finding by the House Intelligence Committee preceded the impeachment inquiry.
However, the landscape has changed. Since January, Republicans have spent months investigating Hunter Biden but have not yet found any credible evidence of wrongdoing by his father. As a result, the process of impeachment is now seen as potentially nothing more than a means of expressing discontent, akin to a mean tweet.
GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson insists that the "evidence" of Joe Biden's corruption is the worst in the history of the country, despite conflicting views among Republicans on the nature of the crimes that need to be investigated. At a Republican-led House hearing in September, their own constitutional expert expressed skepticism that the current evidence would support impeachment. Despite this, Johnson stated last Tuesday that he would not "prejudge" the "outcome" of the impeachment inquiry, but his credibility has been called into question.
The Watergate hearings showcased Congress members prioritizing principle over party affiliation, as both Republican and Democratic staffers collaborated on committee reports and investigations. In contrast, the recent House Republican vote to initiate the Biden inquiry was entirely partisan, with no attempt to build bipartisan support. It appears that the goal of the impeachment is not necessarily conviction, but rather a strategic move to regain the White House and potentially weaken impeachment as a barrier to Trump's authoritarian aspirations.
Former US President and 2024 presidential hopeful Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event in Waterloo, Iowa, on December 19, 2023.
Kamil Krzaczynski/AFP/Getty Images
Opinion: Why the Colorado decision disqualifying Trump was absolutely right
Republican House leaders have failed to provide a justification for their actions based on the original meaning of the Constitution, despite their insistence that this is the only principled basis for constitutional interpretation in other contexts. The founding fathers regarded impeachment as a serious, non-partisan mechanism for holding presidents accountable for proven misconduct.
Impeachment was indeed central to our nation's founding. In the Declaration of Independence, the signatories listed 27 articles of impeachment-like charges against the British monarch, who in England couldn't be subject to impeachment. They were determined to establish a new nation and create a written constitution in which no one, including the president, was above the law.
James Madison emphasized the importance of impeachment at the Constitutional Convention, citing it as crucial for addressing serious presidential misconduct. Meanwhile, George Mason expressed concerns about any individual being above justice. Lowering the standard for impeachment to politically harm Biden not only fails to uphold the original purpose of impeachment but also sets a problematic precedent.
In addition, present-day Republicans are straying from recent Supreme Court rulings that have restricted the investigative authority of the House. The Supreme Court previously ruled unanimously that Nixon had to comply with a judicial subpoena for specific evidence, which ultimately led to his downfall. However, the Court has also made it clear that a fishing expedition by the House is not a legitimate exercise of their authority, as seen in the 2020 case of Trump v. Mazars.
Get our free weekly newsletter
Sign up for CNN Opinions newsletter.
Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook. However, the GOP recently voted to approve an impeachment inquiry against President Biden, despite lacking any substantial new evidence of wrongdoing. Rather than focusing on the President himself, the main target of the investigations has been his son Hunter. It appears that the GOP aims to leverage their new subpoena powers to prolong their search for the President's financial records, in the hopes of uncovering information that could tarnish his reputation.
If the Republicans manage to trivialize impeachment, I fear that they will undermine its crucial role as a constitutional safeguard against a president who disregards the law and seeks revenge. I believe many others share this concern.
