Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

Dear Common Dreams Readers:
Corporations and billionaires have their own media. Shouldn't we? When you “follow the money” that funds our independent journalism, it all leads back to this: people like you. Our supporters are what allows us to produce journalism in the public interest that is beholden only to people, our planet, and the common good. Please support our Mid-Year Campaign so that we always have a newsroom for the people that is funded by the people. Thank you for your support. --Jon Queally, managing editor

Join the small group of generous readers who donate, keeping Common Dreams free for millions of people each year. Without your help, we won’t survive.

Chairman Adam Schiff (C), Democrat of California, speaks alongside Ranking Member Devin Nunes (2nd R), Republican of California, during the first public hearings held by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as part of the impeachment inquiry into US President Donald Trump, with witnesses Ukrainian Ambassador William Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent testifying, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, November 13, 2019. (Photo: Saul Loeb/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

Chairman Adam Schiff (C), Democrat of California, speaks alongside Ranking Member Devin Nunes (2nd R), Republican of California, during the first public hearings held by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as part of the impeachment inquiry into US President Donald Trump, with witnesses Ukrainian Ambassador William Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent testifying, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, November 13, 2019. (Photo: Saul Loeb/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

Why This Impeachment Skeptic Changed His Mind

When a president continually engages in inappropriate behavior to win an election, the election itself ceases to be a reliable way of removing him.

Alan Hirsch

Despite all the uncertainty surrounding impeachment, we can capture the current moment succinctly: President Trump’s fate hinges on whether Republican senators are more fearful of losing in a primary or in the general election. Now that the live impeachment hearings are about to fuel nationwide prime-time programming, those senators’ fears are likely to intensify.

While that dynamic will determine whether Trump will be removed from office, it doesn’t tell us whether he should be.  I am generally an impeachment skeptic. My recent book—Impeaching the President: Past, Present, Future—argues that impeachment should be regarded as a last resort that, as a general proposition, is inappropriate in a president’s first term.  The American people are capable of rendering judgment and should be given the first crack.  

Where the current president is concerned, however, my impeachment skepticism has finally been overcome.  Speaker Pelosi was right to launch an impeachment inquiry and, barring the emergence of facts pointing in an improbable direction, the House should impeach and the Senate should convict and remove President Trump.  

Just last year, I wished for Congress to defer to the American people.  With the presidential election now around the corner, isn’t the case for deferral stronger?  No. In my book, I discuss crucial exceptions to the preference for letting the voters decide the fitness of a president.  

One exception arises when the president’s misconduct involves activity designed to skew things in his favor with respect to reelection.  Self-serving election-affecting behavior lay at the heart of Watergate. Much of the underlying misconduct by the Nixon administration involved improper activities against his prospective opponents in the 1972 election.  True, Congress pursued impeachment against Nixon during his second term, but no one disputes that it would have been appropriate in his first term had the extent of his malfeasance been known.  

That is why recent revelations about the Trump administration’s behavior with respect to Ukraine are an impeachment game-changer.  Holding U.S. foreign policy hostage to personal benefit would be serious enough in any case, and becomes clearly impeachable when the advantage sought is to one’s own reelection.  

Worse still, the President Trump’s troubling phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky, in which he requested the “favor” of an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden (with circumstances suggesting that he held out military aid as reward for that favor), is not the only instance of Trump violating the law or norms surrounding U.S. elections.  

Perhaps Trump was joking (as some of his supporters insist) when he urged Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s missing emails and China to investigate Mr. Biden.  But there was nothing jokey about his hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to prevent the dissemination of information about his alleged extra-marital affairs shortly before the 2016 election.  These apparent violations of campaign finance law constitute more than a technical crime: Their purpose and effect was to keep from the American people information that might have affected the election. We have the makings of a pattern: Trump’s willingness to act improperly to secure victory at the ballot box.  When a president continually engages in inappropriate behavior to win an election, the election itself ceases to be a reliable way of removing him. 

Of course, not every violation is of equal magnitude.  For example, withholding lawfully appropriated military aid from foreign leaders unless they investigate Mr. Biden is probably not as bad as breaking into Democratic National Headquarters.  Even if Trump’s chat with Zelensky wasn’t quite the “perfect call,” he claims, it was hardly the most egregious interference with a U.S. election. Should we give Trump the benefit of the doubt that he wishes to root out all corruption, not simply that which benefits him politically?  Here we might heed the wisdom of Mitt Romney, who observed that Trump seems obsessive in pursuing Biden’s alleged corruption while showing little eagerness to combat corruption more broadly.  

Even so, we could give him the benefit of the doubt.  In my book I argue for a presumption against impeachment: “When in doubt, don’t throw him out.”  But here too, I noted that the rule is not categorical. I call one exception the “rotten store” factor, reference to a comment by a U.S. senator at the time of the Nixon impeachment inquiry.  Senator Paul Sarbanes imagined someone sifting tomatoes in a supermarket and finding that one after another was rotten. If we then sift different vegetables, and find the same thing, at a certain point we ask, “What kind of a store is this?”

Sarbanes and others eventually concluded that Nixon must go not only because he had committed high crimes and misdemeanors but also because his administration was rotten to the core.  I noted in my book that the rotten store metaphor might apply to the Trump administration, citing a range of dubious conduct by President Trump, including “seeking to prevent Muslims from entering the country . . . attacking the Justice Department, FBI, and individual federal judges, downplaying the actions of white supremacists, and waging an assault on the media (including calling them ‘the enemy of the people’) and threatening to restrict their freedom.”  

The sense that an administration is rotten does not suffice for impeachment: There must be high crimes or misdemeanors.  However, where there is an impeachable offense, but members of Congress consider honoring the presumption against removing the president, the rotten store may be decisive. A president may forfeit the presumption against impeachment.  

When a rotten administration repeatedly seeks to gain an improper advantage at the ballot box, it no longer makes sense to regard the ballot box as the only means of removing the president from office.  


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Alan Hirsch

Alan Hirsch

Alan Hirsch, Chair of the Justice and Law Studies program at Williams College, is the author of Impeaching the President: Past, Present, Future (City Lights, 2018) and A Short History of Presidential Election Crises (And How to Prevent the Next One) (City Lights, 2020.)

Just a few days left in our crucial Mid-Year Campaign and we might not make it without your help.
Who funds our independent journalism? Readers like you who believe in our mission: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. No corporate advertisers. No billionaire founder. Our non-partisan, nonprofit media model has only one source of revenue: The people who read and value this work and our mission. That's it.
And the model is simple: If everyone just gives whatever amount they can afford and think is reasonable—$3, $9, $29, or more—we can continue. If not enough do, we go dark.

All the small gifts add up to something otherwise impossible. Please join us today. Donate to Common Dreams. This is crunch time. We need you now.

'Witness Intimidation. Clear as Day': Jan. 6 Panel Teases Evidence of Cover-Up Effort

"Add witness tampering to the laundry list of crimes Trump and his allies must be charged with," said professor Robert Reich.

Jessica Corbett ·


'Bombshell After Bombshell' Dropped as Jan. 6 Testimony Homes In On Trump Guilt

"Hutchinson's testimony of the deeply detailed plans of January 6 and the inaction of those in the White House in response to the violence show just how close we came to a coup," said one pro-democracy organizer.

Brett Wilkins ·


Mark Meadows 'Did Seek That Pardon, Yes Ma'am,' Hutchinson Testifies

The former aide confirmed that attorney Rudy Giuliani also sought a presidential pardon related to the January 6 attack.

Jessica Corbett ·


UN Chief Warns of 'Ocean Emergency' as Leaders Confront Biodiversity Loss, Pollution

"We must turn the tide," said Secretary-General António Guterres. "A healthy and productive ocean is vital to our shared future."

Julia Conley ·


'I Don't F—ing Care That They Have Weapons': Trump Wanted Security to Let Armed Supporters March on Capitol

"They're not here to hurt me," Trump said on the day of the January 6 insurrection, testified a former aide to ex-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.

Jake Johnson ·

Common Dreams Logo