Impeachment Won't Change Anything
There are no solutions in sight to the political infighting, deficit spending or the social morass we face.
October 02, 2019 at 06:57 PM
4 minute read
"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" sound ominous. But the meaning of this phrase is whatever the political party in power wants it to be.
If we step aside from the political punditry and partisan talk, the impeachment process is relatively straightforward, and the end result has historically been toothless. First, a criminal act (aka "High Crimes and Misdemeanors") is not needed to impeach the president. All it takes is any conduct that the majority party in the House believes is violative of one's duty to country or a breach of the public trust (e.g., corruption, abuse of power, sexual misconduct or any conduct in our ever-relaxing moral compass). This conduct is malleable in the hands of the prosecuting political party. One party's definition of corrupt intent is another party's "suggestion"; one party saying abuse of power is another party's "show of strength."
The impeachment process was installed into our constitution to help weed out those who are unfit for office. This would be based upon bad acts that we should all be able to agree upon (versus the talking points that are force-fed to us daily by the MAGA diehards and the Never Trumpers). Today's politics has morphed this process into a power play that is full of hypocritical acts/arguments and demanding of party loyalty. What has been lost is our elected leader's spines and desire to do what is right for our country and not what is right for one's political party. Add to all this the millions upon millions of our dollars being spent in partisan bickering and spin, and it's no wonder our country is in a state of indifference to that which is happening around them and sometimes to them. Our noble constitutional process has become a contest of who has the loudest voice and can sling the most factual distortions to suit their party.
For the party in power, impeachment is relatively simple. The House investigates; then the House drafts articles of impeachment. If a simple majority of the House votes affirmatively, the president is impeached. Being impeached is a great intellectual talking point for pundits and historians; however, the reality is that being "impeached" does not change the status quo or impact us in the least.
Change can only come from the Senate. But this change has never come in American political history. There have been two presidents impeached in our 243 years of existence (Johnson and Clinton—Nixon resigned before impeachment proceedings began). Both impeached presidents were acquitted by the Senate. This is because one party rarely has a majority in the House and a "super" majority in the Senate. Acquittal doesn't mean you didn't do it; it just means the prosecuting political party didn't control two-thirds of the Senate.
There are no solutions in sight to the political infighting, deficit spending or the social morass we face. I expect no better than the daily feigned outrage and hypocritical flip-flops. But rest assured, the impeachment of President Donald Trump will change nothing in our daily lives. The news cycle of the next 13 months will continue to proliferate mealy-mouthed surrogates and politicians fighting with each other … with the end result of getting them more. The status quo remains.
Manubir "Manny" Arora has served as a prosecutor in the U.S. Air Force and the Fulton County District Attorney's Office. He was a partner at the criminal defense firm Garland, Samuel & Loeb before starting Arora & LaScala.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute readTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250