Here & Now

UW Professor Discusses Historic Impeachment

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, an inside look at this week’s historic impeachment of President Donald Trump. The House vote on Wednesday makes Trump the third president to be impeached in U.S. history. The vote went largely along party lines. Here’s what Wisconsin 5th District Representative Republican James Sensenbrenner said on the floor during the vote, followed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s comments after the vote was tallied.

James Sensenbrenner:

There are no allegations that the president has committed a crime. We’ve had almost three years of nonstop investigations. We’ve had the Mueller report. We’ve had the Schiff investigation. We’ve had the Nadler investigation and at no time is there any evidence that indicates that Donald J. Trump violated any criminal statute of the United States.

Nancy Pelosi:

Seems like people have a spring in their step because the president was held accountable for his reckless behavior. No one is above the law and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Frederica Freyberg:

When we asked U.S. Representative Ron Kind on this program last week how he would vote on Articles of Impeachment, he would not definitively say. However, he stood with other Wisconsin Democrats Wednesday, voting in favor. The state’s Republican delegation voted against impeachment of the president. That historic process coincides with electoral politics, including Thursday night’s Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate. We check in now with an expert on elections and the presidency, UW-Madison Professor of Journalism and Mass Communications Mike Wagner. Thanks a lot for being here.

Mike Wagner:

It’s my pleasure.

Frederica Freyberg:

First on the impeachment of President Trump. After so many, many hours of testimony and debate, really along strict partisan lines, it almost seemed anti-climactic, and yet, it is historic.

Mike Wagner:

It’s absolutely historic. We’ve only had this happen three times, although twice in the last 20 years. And so it seems a little more common for those of us living in this particular era. But this is a rare thing that happens in our country. And while the debates that happened on the floor of the House probably won’t be used in textbooks for examples of high-quality debate in future times, this is a really important moment that lays down what it is our lawmakers think presidents are allowed to do. Are they allowed to help themselves and help themselves politically by dealing with foreign nations or not, which is kind of the central question. And the secondary question, can they refuse to treat Congress as a coequal branch of government, the other Article of Impeachment.

Frederica Freyberg:

It seems that the impeachment process has served to solidify the president’s base and support. How is that?

Mike Wagner:

Some of it, I think you saw from the comments from Congressman Sensenbrenner. Some Republicans have said well, the president has not been shown to have committed a crime. That’s not the standard for impeachment. So it’s not really relevant to the conversation. What’s relevant is whether the president violated his oath and has engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors, which is something the House gets to decide to define. So I think that’s one thing. Other Republicans have just said Democrats have had it in for President Trump since day one. I think the Democratic response is if that’s true, why didn’t we impeach him on day one? We waited until he did things that we felt violated the oath of office. Those are kind of the main arguments that are going on. It’s a super partisan process. It’s super acrimonious, and the public is interested but not really changing their minds in any kind of systemic way. I think we’re — once again, seeing another issue that polarizes us relatively equally

Frederica Freyberg:

What do you make of Speaker Pelosi slow-walking sending the Impeach articles to the Senate?

Mike Wagner:

I think she’s trying to assert a strong preference for the trial in the Senate being something that’s taken seriously. I think Speaker Pelosi wants to avoid something that we might think is akin to what happened in Wisconsin with the special session on guns where there was a gavel in and a gavel out and it was over immediately. Speaker Pelosi wants there to be in a trial in the Senate, presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, where the president has to make a defense to these charges against him. And she wants it to take time. And she wants the president to have an opportunity to lay out his case and the House managers to lay out theirs.

Frederica Freyberg:

It also allows her and the House Democrats to allow this idea of historic impeachment of Donald Trump to really sink in.

Mike Wagner:

It allows it to sink in, perhaps. And it also is political in that the longer this drags on, the more the president might be embattled, the more other things working their way through the courts about who else who works for the president might have to testify, might eventually be decided. So it’s certainly political as well as dutiful.

Frederica Freyberg:

Do you expect the impeachment to help or hurt Democrats?

Mike Wagner:

That’s a great question and I think the honest answer is I’m not sure. When President Clinton was in office, he was really popular during impeachment. President Trump has not gained in popularity. He’s still under water largely in terms of his overall public approval even though the economy is pretty strong by some measures. He hasn’t had the same benefit. So I think to predict a systemic advantage one way or another is not something we have data to really know. I think it’s an open question.

Frederica Freyberg:

As for Democrats, any sense on your part who won last night’s debate?

Mike Wagner:

Well, I think Amy Klobuchar had a good night. Once the stage was smaller, it became clearer that there were two lanes the candidates are vying for. The more progressive lane that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are vying for although Warren is starting to drive on the more moderate shoulder of the road in the progressive lane. And Klobuchar is kind of vying with Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg for that centrist lane. I think Klobuchar did herself a lot of favors last night. People didn’t have their eyes trained and you know, quips trained on her because of her position in the polls. So Buttigeg and Warren could battle it out to maybe damage each other a bit. Biden and Sanders could do the same. And Klobuchar looked like the pragmatist who could get things done which is what she wants to be seen by. Whether that appeals to primary voters we’ll find out in the coming months.

Frederica Freyberg:

What’s your prediction as to which candidate takes the nomination?

Mike Wagner:

I don’t know. It’s pretty early to tell still. I would say that Joe Biden has probably the best chance. I think Elizabeth Warren has the next best chance. There are plenty of people who are more middle of the road democrats who just don’t like Bernie Sanders. And so I think it will be harder for him to sustain the kind of popularity he would need to get to the nomination, although he came close last time. It’s Joe Biden’s to lose, but he’s tried this before and lost each time. And so — and he’s much older now and is not quite — doesn’t have his finger on the pulse of the times in the way he might have when he ran the first time, which leaves the door open for other candidates. That gives Pete Buttigieg a chance. It gives Senator Klobuchar a chance. It gives Senator Warren a chance.

Frederica Freyberg:

Mike Wagner. Thanks very much.

Mike Wagner:

My pleasure.