Here & Now

UW Political Scientist on the Process of Impeachment

Frederica Freyberg:

In a timely bit of classroom instruction, our next guest has been teaching his political science students this week about the impeachment process. UW-Madison Professor David Cannon joins us now to help break it down. Thanks for being here.

David Cannon:

Good to be with you.

Frederica Freyberg:

First of all, what stood out to you in this whistleblower complaint?

David Cannon:

So a lot of it had come out already earlier in the week. We knew about the phone call. We know about basically what had happened. Then when the transcript was released, we had the details of that. The one thing that really jumped out to me I think and was the headlines in most papers today was the cover-up angle of this. That the people in the White House right after the conversation were very concerned about the content of that phone call. And then immediately put it to lock down mode on this server that was password protected that only top-level people had access to. I think that was a really strong indication they knew there was something problematic in this phone call. Calling it a cover up, I think, is basically accurate in terms of how they’re dealing with this.

Frederica Freyberg:

Is what’s happening unprecedented as has been described?

David Cannon:

It really is. If we take it at face value what appears to be happening here of a president asking a foreign country to dig up dirt on this main rival in the upcoming presidential election. So basically using the power of the presidential office and potentially undermining foreign policy and security by withholding $400 million in aid to a critical country while this whole process unfolds in terms of will Ukraine do his bidding and do the investigations that he’s asking for in this phone call. That really is unprecedented.

Frederica Freyberg:

Can it not, though, be described as the president describes it as a witch hunt?

David Cannon:

I don’t think so. I mean just based on the facts we know already and that the president has admitted to, that he did bring up Vice-President Biden and Hunter Biden in this phone call. That I think is uncontested in terms of the facts. I think where people differ in how they’re viewing this, is whether or not there needs to be a fairly explicit quid pro quo in terms of you do this for us and we’ll help you out. Or is just the asking enough? You do get differences of opinion there. Where some people are saying without the evidence of that quid pro quo then we really don’t have an impeachable offense. Where others say just the asking alone was enough.

Frederica Freyberg:

How much does it matter, in your mind, that the whistleblower complaint contains secondhand observations only?

David Cannon:

One thing that I think really has come out in last just 24 hours is that the CIA operative, someone who has inside knowledge about Ukraine, is the whistleblower. So someone that does have detailed foreign policy knowledge of the area. That adds to the credibility. But I think it is a legitimate question to bring up in terms of was this all just hearsay, secondhand? The person in the complaint says I was not in on the phone calls. This is just from other things I heard from people who were involved. But given the person’s position as sort of the center of digesting all of the critical information from that region, it really is very well situated for making this whistleblower complaint because they really know all the strategic questions involved.

Frederica Freyberg:

In terms of the process, you’ve been instructing your poly-sci students this week on the impeachment process. What are the Cliff Notes? What should our viewers know?

David Cannon:

So I say the two key things to know. One is that there’s often confusion about the word impeachment itself. Some people use that to mean removal from office. But it really is a two-step process. The first is the House impeaching with a majority vote. That’s like the charges against the person who is accused of the offenses. Then the trial goes to the Senate. That’s where, by a two-thirds vote, removal would happen if the president would be convicted in the Senate. So impeachment — like Bill Clinton was impeached but not removed. So we could see that happen again this time potentially where President Trump might be impeached by the House by a majority vote of the Democrats but then not removed if Republicans don’t get on board. You’d need 20 Republicans to vote for conviction in order to remove the president. That’s the first point. The second is in terms of what it takes to get impeachment charge and there the Constitution’s very sparse in its language, just bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors. And so what actually is defined as an impeachable offense comes down to what a given House of Representatives says it is at a given point in time. There’s no crime that has to be involved. It’s just if there is a violation of public trust.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. We need to leave it there. David Cannon. Thanks very much.

David Cannon:

Good to be with you.