What do you think?
Rate this book
Impeachment: An American History
Four experts on the American presidency review the only three impeachment cases from history--against Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton--and explore its power and meaning for today.
Impeachment is rare, and for good reason. Designed to check tyrants or defend the nation from a commander-in-chief who refuses to do so, the process of impeachment outlined in the Constitution is what Thomas Jefferson called "the most formidable weapon for the purpose of a dominant faction that was ever contrived." It nullifies the will of voters, the basic foundation of legitimacy for all representative democracies. Only three times has a president's conduct led to such political disarray as to warrant his potential removal from office, transforming a political crisis into a constitutional one. None has yet succeeded. Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for failing to kowtow to congressional leaders--and in a large sense, for failing to be Abraham Lincoln--yet survived his Senate trial. Richard Nixon resigned in July of 1974 after the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment for lying, obstructing justice, and employing his executive power for personal and political gain. Bill Clinton had an affair with a White House intern, but in 1999 faced trial in the Senate less for that prurient act than for lying under oath about it.
In the first book to consider these three presidents alone, and the one thing they have in common, Jeffrey Engel, Jon Meacham, Timothy Naftali, and Peter Baker explain that the basis and process of impeachment is more political than it is a legal verdict. The Constitution states that the president, "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," leaving room for historical precedent and the temperament of the time to weigh heavily on each case. These three cases highlight factors beyond the president's behavior that impact the likelihood and outcome of an impeachment: the president's relationship with Congress, the power and resilience of the office itself, and the polarization of the moment. This is a realist, rather than hypothetical, view of impeachment that looks to history for clues about its future--with one obvious candidate in mind.
Impeachment is rare, and for good reason. Designed to check tyrants or defend the nation from a commander-in-chief who refuses to do so, the process of impeachment outlined in the Constitution is what Thomas Jefferson called "the most formidable weapon for the purpose of a dominant faction that was ever contrived." It nullifies the will of voters, the basic foundation of legitimacy for all representative democracies. Only three times has a president's conduct led to such political disarray as to warrant his potential removal from office, transforming a political crisis into a constitutional one. None has yet succeeded. Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for failing to kowtow to congressional leaders--and in a large sense, for failing to be Abraham Lincoln--yet survived his Senate trial. Richard Nixon resigned in July of 1974 after the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment for lying, obstructing justice, and employing his executive power for personal and political gain. Bill Clinton had an affair with a White House intern, but in 1999 faced trial in the Senate less for that prurient act than for lying under oath about it.
In the first book to consider these three presidents alone, and the one thing they have in common, Jeffrey Engel, Jon Meacham, Timothy Naftali, and Peter Baker explain that the basis and process of impeachment is more political than it is a legal verdict. The Constitution states that the president, "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," leaving room for historical precedent and the temperament of the time to weigh heavily on each case. These three cases highlight factors beyond the president's behavior that impact the likelihood and outcome of an impeachment: the president's relationship with Congress, the power and resilience of the office itself, and the polarization of the moment. This is a realist, rather than hypothetical, view of impeachment that looks to history for clues about its future--with one obvious candidate in mind.
294 pages, Hardcover
First published October 16, 2018
240 people are currently reading
2494 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 167 reviews
October 14, 2020
I have decided to embark on a mission to read a number of books on subjects that will be of great importance to the upcoming 2020 US Presidential Election. Many of these will focus on actors intricately involved in the process, in hopes that I can understand them better and, perhaps, educate others with the power to cast a ballot. I am, as always, open to serious recommendations from anyone who has a book I might like to include in the process.
This is Book #23 (a re-read) in my 2020 US Election Preparation Challenge.
The term ‘impeachment’ has taken on a life of its own, particularly in the American political system. It has been bandied about numerous times, by legislators and media alike, to add fuel to a fire when an individual in a position of authority appears to stray from their constitutionally-permitted role. While many federal positions use impeachment to remove the office holder, only the three men who held the position of President of the United States (POTUS) are discussed in the essays that comprise this collection, along with some sentiments about potential future impeachment, based on the furor that appears to be growing. The scholars who penned these essays offer their own insights into the events that led to impeachment proceedings, or the potential of them. Jeffrey Engel offers the reader a primer on the basis of impeachment and how it found its way into the US Constitution, including the struggles the Founding Father’s faced when outlining the rules surrounding qualification and its use by Congress. As with with much within the US Constitution, the rules are vague and open to interpretation. Thereafter, Jon Meacham opens with an essay on the impeachment process of Andrew Johnson, the first POTUS to be thrust into this political drama. Strongly against Reconstruction after the Civil War and having been handed the job when Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson was vilified by many and it took three attempts to bring forth Articles of Impeachment before any would pass, tossing the case to the Senate. Johnson was firm in his beliefs and used southern sentiment to have the case fall a single vote short, in what Meacham aptly calls a ‘partisan impeachment’. One hundred years later, new impeachment threats were levied against Richard Nixon, in an essay penned by presidential historian Timothy Naftali. Arguing that it was not the Watergate break-in, but the cover-up and firing of the independent special prosecutor that pushed Nixon into the firing line, Naftali contrasts this situation with that of Johnson. While there was a strong partisan push for impeachment, Republicans joined the Democrats to call for Nixon’s removal, thereby creating the bipartisan momentum lacking in Meacham’s earlier essay. Naftali develops a wonderfully detailed narrative to expose the developing process whereby Congress took steps to rid themselves of a ‘crook’, though the man was able to read the tea leaves and left when hope seemed all but lost. Peter Baker takes up the torch in examining Bill Clinton’s actions, culminating in 1997-1998, which led to numerous Articles coming from the House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee. While some would deem the entire situation salacious, Baker explores how perjury by a sitting president could push the realms of acceptable and lead some to draw parallels to the rule-breaking that Nixon did at will. Executive Privilge became the buzzword, leaving the Special Prosecutor and some within the Republican controlled House Judiciary Committee to launch into a form of witch hunt with the intent of embarrassing Clinton as he had America on the world scene. With a partisan split during Article voting, Clinton’s impeachment went to the Senate, the first in the era of television. Such drama evolved on screen, much like the trial of OI.J. Simpson did five years before. In the end, both sides agreed that substantiating the impeachment claims were never intended, but rather a wrap on the knuckles. As Jeffrey Engel returns to conclude, one must look at present circumstances to decide if impeachment is worthwhile, though it is surely not an act to be taken lightly. As is argued throughout, impeachment is a political, not legal, tool. It is also defined as whatever the majority of House members choose it to be. While many wait to see if Articles will come, now that the Democrats have control of the House, it should not be the central focus of the country’s legislators. At least for the time being, one has to worry about keeping the ship on course, as it enters murky waters. Highly recommended to those readers who enjoy political discussion and historical analysis of events, as poignant today as when they occurred.
There is no doubt that impeachment has been on the lips of many, especially since the Russia probe has begun to gain momentum. One need only look at publications of tomes and essays released since 2016 to see how many academics have weighed in already. Understanding the process is as important and the end result, something that the layperson in America may not fully comprehend. Impeachment, as is seen through the three central essays in the collection, as well as an introduction and conclusion, is a messy business that divides both along party and political lines. The three men whose names have come up in impeachment proceedings did something sever enough that the Founding Father’s might have agreed with the use of this stop-gap measure to keep America great, though it was the interpretation at each instance that led to different approaches to the same set of vague constitutional rules. While impeachment is a weapon used to threaten regularly, few holders of the Oval Office have had their names dragged through the constitutional mud. Why is that? Likely a heightened degree of seriousness that accompanies the threat, as well as the difficulty to enact it—which is not altogether a bad thing! Interested readers can bask in the details offered in this collection, as well as the poignant arguments made as threats of impeachment surface again. Is there enough to bring Articles? Would the Senate support it? While things tend to be political when it comes to Congress, the reader can decide for themselves, after receiving the plethora of information found in this book. The essays are not only penned by scholars, but they are easily digested, allowing the lay reader to fully comprehend the issues at hand. This is essential in an era where media spoon-feed the electorate at every opportunity. I await news from the Special Prosecutor and how the White House will react to it. That may—and precedent shows that it will—prove either the last nail in the coffin or used to disperse discussion until November 2020, when the electorate can speak with democratic voices. That being said, there remains a question as to how fair that venture might be. However, that is a discussion for another scholarly tome.
Kudos, Messrs Engel, Meacham, Naftali, and Baker, for this insightful piece. I learned so much and understand the system a lot better now. These insider explorations of events, left out of the history books, has helped me create a more grounded opinion on whether impeachment should rear its head again soon.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
This is Book #23 (a re-read) in my 2020 US Election Preparation Challenge.
The term ‘impeachment’ has taken on a life of its own, particularly in the American political system. It has been bandied about numerous times, by legislators and media alike, to add fuel to a fire when an individual in a position of authority appears to stray from their constitutionally-permitted role. While many federal positions use impeachment to remove the office holder, only the three men who held the position of President of the United States (POTUS) are discussed in the essays that comprise this collection, along with some sentiments about potential future impeachment, based on the furor that appears to be growing. The scholars who penned these essays offer their own insights into the events that led to impeachment proceedings, or the potential of them. Jeffrey Engel offers the reader a primer on the basis of impeachment and how it found its way into the US Constitution, including the struggles the Founding Father’s faced when outlining the rules surrounding qualification and its use by Congress. As with with much within the US Constitution, the rules are vague and open to interpretation. Thereafter, Jon Meacham opens with an essay on the impeachment process of Andrew Johnson, the first POTUS to be thrust into this political drama. Strongly against Reconstruction after the Civil War and having been handed the job when Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson was vilified by many and it took three attempts to bring forth Articles of Impeachment before any would pass, tossing the case to the Senate. Johnson was firm in his beliefs and used southern sentiment to have the case fall a single vote short, in what Meacham aptly calls a ‘partisan impeachment’. One hundred years later, new impeachment threats were levied against Richard Nixon, in an essay penned by presidential historian Timothy Naftali. Arguing that it was not the Watergate break-in, but the cover-up and firing of the independent special prosecutor that pushed Nixon into the firing line, Naftali contrasts this situation with that of Johnson. While there was a strong partisan push for impeachment, Republicans joined the Democrats to call for Nixon’s removal, thereby creating the bipartisan momentum lacking in Meacham’s earlier essay. Naftali develops a wonderfully detailed narrative to expose the developing process whereby Congress took steps to rid themselves of a ‘crook’, though the man was able to read the tea leaves and left when hope seemed all but lost. Peter Baker takes up the torch in examining Bill Clinton’s actions, culminating in 1997-1998, which led to numerous Articles coming from the House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee. While some would deem the entire situation salacious, Baker explores how perjury by a sitting president could push the realms of acceptable and lead some to draw parallels to the rule-breaking that Nixon did at will. Executive Privilge became the buzzword, leaving the Special Prosecutor and some within the Republican controlled House Judiciary Committee to launch into a form of witch hunt with the intent of embarrassing Clinton as he had America on the world scene. With a partisan split during Article voting, Clinton’s impeachment went to the Senate, the first in the era of television. Such drama evolved on screen, much like the trial of OI.J. Simpson did five years before. In the end, both sides agreed that substantiating the impeachment claims were never intended, but rather a wrap on the knuckles. As Jeffrey Engel returns to conclude, one must look at present circumstances to decide if impeachment is worthwhile, though it is surely not an act to be taken lightly. As is argued throughout, impeachment is a political, not legal, tool. It is also defined as whatever the majority of House members choose it to be. While many wait to see if Articles will come, now that the Democrats have control of the House, it should not be the central focus of the country’s legislators. At least for the time being, one has to worry about keeping the ship on course, as it enters murky waters. Highly recommended to those readers who enjoy political discussion and historical analysis of events, as poignant today as when they occurred.
There is no doubt that impeachment has been on the lips of many, especially since the Russia probe has begun to gain momentum. One need only look at publications of tomes and essays released since 2016 to see how many academics have weighed in already. Understanding the process is as important and the end result, something that the layperson in America may not fully comprehend. Impeachment, as is seen through the three central essays in the collection, as well as an introduction and conclusion, is a messy business that divides both along party and political lines. The three men whose names have come up in impeachment proceedings did something sever enough that the Founding Father’s might have agreed with the use of this stop-gap measure to keep America great, though it was the interpretation at each instance that led to different approaches to the same set of vague constitutional rules. While impeachment is a weapon used to threaten regularly, few holders of the Oval Office have had their names dragged through the constitutional mud. Why is that? Likely a heightened degree of seriousness that accompanies the threat, as well as the difficulty to enact it—which is not altogether a bad thing! Interested readers can bask in the details offered in this collection, as well as the poignant arguments made as threats of impeachment surface again. Is there enough to bring Articles? Would the Senate support it? While things tend to be political when it comes to Congress, the reader can decide for themselves, after receiving the plethora of information found in this book. The essays are not only penned by scholars, but they are easily digested, allowing the lay reader to fully comprehend the issues at hand. This is essential in an era where media spoon-feed the electorate at every opportunity. I await news from the Special Prosecutor and how the White House will react to it. That may—and precedent shows that it will—prove either the last nail in the coffin or used to disperse discussion until November 2020, when the electorate can speak with democratic voices. That being said, there remains a question as to how fair that venture might be. However, that is a discussion for another scholarly tome.
Kudos, Messrs Engel, Meacham, Naftali, and Baker, for this insightful piece. I learned so much and understand the system a lot better now. These insider explorations of events, left out of the history books, has helped me create a more grounded opinion on whether impeachment should rear its head again soon.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
October 25, 2018
Impeachment remains the most serious constitutional weapon against the President of the United States. It is rarely seriously considered, and only three presidents have been placed in serious jeopardy of removal from office. In each case, they were spared, though usually politically wounded. Andrew Johnson’s Articles of Impeachment passed the House of Representatives only to flounder in the Senate. Richard Nixon resigned rather than facing his impending removal. And Bill Clinton faced a trial in the Senate that lacked the votes to convict.
These three stories have many similarities. Each president, mostly fueled by their own hubris, at some point felt sure they could survive politically. Similarly, all three times Congress was forced to consider whether a president’s conduct placed himself dangerously above the country. However, each has severe differences, and therein lies the special craft of this book. Three separate scholars tackle each of the presidents in extended essays, examining impeachment proceedings and their immediate impacts.
Biographer Jon Meacham has perhaps the most difficult job tackling Andrew Johnson. His presidency is furthest removed from the present, and there is some specific background necessary for readers to fully appreciate the charges against John—Mostly, he wasn’t Lincoln. However, Meacham is more than up to the task and this essay ultimately sets the tone for the rest of the book.
Historian Timothy Naftali picks up the pace with his analysis of Richard Nixon. The only case of presidential resignation, Naftali carefully sifts and compresses the overwhelming wealth of Nixon information into a digestible format.
Finishing, journalist Peter Baker examines Bill Clinton. Here, not only is there a compelling narrative about impeachment, but also about the personal lives of politicians.
All of this is bookended by Jeffrey Engel, who covers some basic impeachment information and relates it to today. Altogether, the result is a constructed patchwork of history, with parallels appearing to interweave with each successive case and on into the present.
And that’s really the elephant in the room with this book. Discussion of impeachment have cropped up repeatedly throughout the current presidential administration, starting even before Inauguration Day. With the backdrop of most any other administration, it’s hard to imagine a book like this having such relevance. Engel even suggests as much, asking readers of the opening chapter to put aside thoughts of the current president until the last chapter. It’s effective. This is not a case for or against impeachment but, rather, a wonderfully researched examination of how the country has handled the issue during its most tumultuous times.
Note: I received a free ARC of this book through NetGalley.
Review also posted at https://pluckedfromthestacks.wordpres...
These three stories have many similarities. Each president, mostly fueled by their own hubris, at some point felt sure they could survive politically. Similarly, all three times Congress was forced to consider whether a president’s conduct placed himself dangerously above the country. However, each has severe differences, and therein lies the special craft of this book. Three separate scholars tackle each of the presidents in extended essays, examining impeachment proceedings and their immediate impacts.
Biographer Jon Meacham has perhaps the most difficult job tackling Andrew Johnson. His presidency is furthest removed from the present, and there is some specific background necessary for readers to fully appreciate the charges against John—Mostly, he wasn’t Lincoln. However, Meacham is more than up to the task and this essay ultimately sets the tone for the rest of the book.
Historian Timothy Naftali picks up the pace with his analysis of Richard Nixon. The only case of presidential resignation, Naftali carefully sifts and compresses the overwhelming wealth of Nixon information into a digestible format.
Finishing, journalist Peter Baker examines Bill Clinton. Here, not only is there a compelling narrative about impeachment, but also about the personal lives of politicians.
All of this is bookended by Jeffrey Engel, who covers some basic impeachment information and relates it to today. Altogether, the result is a constructed patchwork of history, with parallels appearing to interweave with each successive case and on into the present.
And that’s really the elephant in the room with this book. Discussion of impeachment have cropped up repeatedly throughout the current presidential administration, starting even before Inauguration Day. With the backdrop of most any other administration, it’s hard to imagine a book like this having such relevance. Engel even suggests as much, asking readers of the opening chapter to put aside thoughts of the current president until the last chapter. It’s effective. This is not a case for or against impeachment but, rather, a wonderfully researched examination of how the country has handled the issue during its most tumultuous times.
Note: I received a free ARC of this book through NetGalley.
Review also posted at https://pluckedfromthestacks.wordpres...
January 11, 2019
This is a great overview of American impeachment, with a chapter on each of the impeachment episodes in our history – the impeachment and narrow acquittal of Andrew Johnson, the almost certain impeachment and conviction of Richard Nixon had he not resigned first, and the impeachment and anticlimactic acquittal of Bill Clinton – with an introduction and conclusion addressing the elephant in the room and one detailing how impeachment came to exist in the Constitution the way it does.
There's a lot of great info here delivered in a brief, easy-to-digest format. There are lots of great books about the Watergate crisis, relatively few about the Johnson impeachment and the racial divisions that sparked it, and of course plenty of us were alive during the Lewinsky scandal. But regardless of your knowledge level, the respective authors are likely to surprise you with new or forgotten information about these three episodes.
What becomes clear is how the various actors in each drama wrestled with similar questions over the criteria for impeachment, the meaning of the Constitution's language, and the countervailing impulses of partisanship and patriotism. It also becomes clear that the bipartisan consensus over Nixon's guilt – although it was slow to develop before quickly coalescing in the weeks before his resignation – was based on a shared commitment to facts and the good of the country among most members of Congress that is hard to imagine today. That said, it was also hard to imagine in 1974 – until it happened.
Obviously, this book does not exist in a vacuum. Impeachment is a topic because the current president appears to be ethically and perhaps legally compromised in numerous ways. Although Donald Trump's name is never mentioned in the four main chapters of the book, his presence lurks beneath all of them. Each chapter seems at least in part to be saying: This is what happens when a president is impeached. Are you sure this is the appropriate path?
In my opinion, the answer is clearly yes. Based on the historical examples before us and the written record of the founders, Trump is exactly the kind of president the framers feared could take advantage of the system and damage American democracy.
But you'll have to read this excellent book for yourself and come up with your own answer. Before long, we might be adding another chapter.
There's a lot of great info here delivered in a brief, easy-to-digest format. There are lots of great books about the Watergate crisis, relatively few about the Johnson impeachment and the racial divisions that sparked it, and of course plenty of us were alive during the Lewinsky scandal. But regardless of your knowledge level, the respective authors are likely to surprise you with new or forgotten information about these three episodes.
What becomes clear is how the various actors in each drama wrestled with similar questions over the criteria for impeachment, the meaning of the Constitution's language, and the countervailing impulses of partisanship and patriotism. It also becomes clear that the bipartisan consensus over Nixon's guilt – although it was slow to develop before quickly coalescing in the weeks before his resignation – was based on a shared commitment to facts and the good of the country among most members of Congress that is hard to imagine today. That said, it was also hard to imagine in 1974 – until it happened.
Obviously, this book does not exist in a vacuum. Impeachment is a topic because the current president appears to be ethically and perhaps legally compromised in numerous ways. Although Donald Trump's name is never mentioned in the four main chapters of the book, his presence lurks beneath all of them. Each chapter seems at least in part to be saying: This is what happens when a president is impeached. Are you sure this is the appropriate path?
In my opinion, the answer is clearly yes. Based on the historical examples before us and the written record of the founders, Trump is exactly the kind of president the framers feared could take advantage of the system and damage American democracy.
But you'll have to read this excellent book for yourself and come up with your own answer. Before long, we might be adding another chapter.
October 24, 2018
I received my copy free through Goodreads Giveaway.
I'm impressed with a rational treatment of what could be a hysteria driven topic. I appreciated the information in the current political climate. Nicely done.
I'm impressed with a rational treatment of what could be a hysteria driven topic. I appreciated the information in the current political climate. Nicely done.
January 22, 2019
Very interesting and very topical no matter your political stance. With all the talk of the "I" word going on this is a must read for a true understanding what it meant to the framers of the constitution, how it has been applied in the past (in the case of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton), and what the future may hold for presidents in our increasingly divisive tribal politics.
Author Peter Baker gives us a quick overview of the three which have faced impeachment, "If the Andrew Johnson impeachment was judged by history to be illegitimate because it essentially litigated a policy dispute rather than a high crime and if the Richard Nixon scandal was judged to be clear-cut in meeting the standard for removing a president from office, then the Clinton episode fell somewhere in the murky middle."
He further summarizes, ”Any impeachment, however legitimate or not, however wise or not, rewrites the rules for the presidents who follow--until the next one comes along and rewrites them all over again."
Quoting another of the authors (Jeffrey A Engel): They are rare, but increasingly relevant. Congress impeached only one president in the country's first 184 years. The next two impeachment crises took a mere twenty-five more. Plotted on a timeline their pace thus appears to be quickening, but we need not employ so crude a measure as dots and graph paper to tell us that talk of impeachment swirls today as rarely before."
I learned surprisingly there is no constitutional definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. It is the way the designers wanted it. They wanted it "to be such a high political bar that it exceeds mere partisan fury, but instead requires a president whose proof of malfeasance is unquestioned, lest the question itself split the nation further and perhaps beyond repair."
Mr. Engel wraps it all up thus, "So long as there are doubts, there is always another election. And with the important caveat that so long as there remains no doubt that the next election will occur, we would all be less frustrated if we focused on winning the next rather than litigating the last. This is truly what the study of history teaches: that the past cannot be changed, merely employed to bring about a better future."
Author Peter Baker gives us a quick overview of the three which have faced impeachment, "If the Andrew Johnson impeachment was judged by history to be illegitimate because it essentially litigated a policy dispute rather than a high crime and if the Richard Nixon scandal was judged to be clear-cut in meeting the standard for removing a president from office, then the Clinton episode fell somewhere in the murky middle."
He further summarizes, ”Any impeachment, however legitimate or not, however wise or not, rewrites the rules for the presidents who follow--until the next one comes along and rewrites them all over again."
Quoting another of the authors (Jeffrey A Engel): They are rare, but increasingly relevant. Congress impeached only one president in the country's first 184 years. The next two impeachment crises took a mere twenty-five more. Plotted on a timeline their pace thus appears to be quickening, but we need not employ so crude a measure as dots and graph paper to tell us that talk of impeachment swirls today as rarely before."
I learned surprisingly there is no constitutional definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. It is the way the designers wanted it. They wanted it "to be such a high political bar that it exceeds mere partisan fury, but instead requires a president whose proof of malfeasance is unquestioned, lest the question itself split the nation further and perhaps beyond repair."
Mr. Engel wraps it all up thus, "So long as there are doubts, there is always another election. And with the important caveat that so long as there remains no doubt that the next election will occur, we would all be less frustrated if we focused on winning the next rather than litigating the last. This is truly what the study of history teaches: that the past cannot be changed, merely employed to bring about a better future."
January 8, 2020
Highly recommend. I thought I knew a lot about our history of impeachment of presidents. Alas, I had a lot to learn.
January 17, 2020
Each of the 4 authors who wrote chapters for this book are outstanding scholars and authors. They each present the case for impeachment against 3 US Presidents that faced the threat, Andrew Johnson (by Meacham), Richard Nixon(by Naftali) and Bill Clinton (by Baker). Impeachment: An American History attempts to help understand the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” as understood by our Founding Fathers. It is a very good overview of the 25th Amendment in relation to our current President. The histories of these 3 previous presidential impeachments helps to clarify in context the case against our sitting President. We understand the politics around them and should look for the facts and not partisanship where we are deceived by one side or the other.
This was an excellent source on the justification, motives, procedures and partisanship of the impeachment process. Engels does an excellent job explaining the debates, discussions and consensus on what the authors of the Constitution determined to be impeachable offenses. With this overview, we can understand better the challenges of the process and why it is used so sparingly.
I recommend this book during this critical time with the impeachment of our current President and understand the process better.
This was an excellent source on the justification, motives, procedures and partisanship of the impeachment process. Engels does an excellent job explaining the debates, discussions and consensus on what the authors of the Constitution determined to be impeachable offenses. With this overview, we can understand better the challenges of the process and why it is used so sparingly.
I recommend this book during this critical time with the impeachment of our current President and understand the process better.
January 8, 2020
Four essays by Presidential historians that examine the question of impeachment in the Constitution and in the history of the presidency. Each takes a particular aspect of the subject starting with the framer's ultimate decision to include a method of removing the President and thereby revoking the People's vote. I found this and the concluding essay to be the most interesting as they each discussed the ideas that go into making the decisions of what constitutes impeachable offenses and how serious a process impeachment actually is. The effect of the impeachment process on the country at large is usually profound and disruptive even though we have yet to remove a President through this process. In the other essays, each historian took one of the Presidents and went through his Impeachment showing what led to it, the atmosphere surrounding it and the outcome. This was a very informative political lesson especially considering the current situation.
October 26, 2020
This is a tiny, undersized little book that makes it look unserious, one that is written by committee and clearly aimed at capitalizing on current events to produce an easy-reading history of presidential impeachment for the masses.
But darned if it doesn't work.
This is an excellent primer on the justification, motives, procedures and partisanship of the impeachment process that would be a valuable and informative read regardless of whether impeachment was currently in the public consciousness.
The opening chapter and the chapter on Nixon are particularly well-done. The opening because it very clearly explains the debates, discussions and eventual consensus on what the Framers of the Constitution determined would constitute an impeachable offense. And while Watergate has been well picked-over by now, the Nixon chapter tells the story from the point of view of the House Judiciary Committee, providing some fresh perspective on the well-told tale.
And despite the fact that four individuals share authorship, the book comes together cohesively and flows seamlessly.
The only place where the book falls a bit flat is in the very last paragraph, in which Engel concludes that "with the important caveat that so long as there remains no doubt that the next election will occur (and its results trusted), we would all be less frustrated if we focused on winning the next rather than litigating the last." That's quite the "caveat", given that President Trump stands accused of accepting, soliciting and/or benefiting from foreign influence in our electoral process. So suggesting that impeachment is so perilous and partisan that we'd be better off looking the other way and normalizing potentially impeachable behavior by relying on the next election - compromised as it may be - to hold a president accountable for his actions, just seems a bit tone deaf given our present situation.
But darned if it doesn't work.
This is an excellent primer on the justification, motives, procedures and partisanship of the impeachment process that would be a valuable and informative read regardless of whether impeachment was currently in the public consciousness.
The opening chapter and the chapter on Nixon are particularly well-done. The opening because it very clearly explains the debates, discussions and eventual consensus on what the Framers of the Constitution determined would constitute an impeachable offense. And while Watergate has been well picked-over by now, the Nixon chapter tells the story from the point of view of the House Judiciary Committee, providing some fresh perspective on the well-told tale.
And despite the fact that four individuals share authorship, the book comes together cohesively and flows seamlessly.
The only place where the book falls a bit flat is in the very last paragraph, in which Engel concludes that "with the important caveat that so long as there remains no doubt that the next election will occur (and its results trusted), we would all be less frustrated if we focused on winning the next rather than litigating the last." That's quite the "caveat", given that President Trump stands accused of accepting, soliciting and/or benefiting from foreign influence in our electoral process. So suggesting that impeachment is so perilous and partisan that we'd be better off looking the other way and normalizing potentially impeachable behavior by relying on the next election - compromised as it may be - to hold a president accountable for his actions, just seems a bit tone deaf given our present situation.
June 6, 2024
Non-fiction hardback. Gave it 3.5 stars. Had some slow
passages. This is the 3rd book I've read on this subject.
This had a 2018 copyright, before President Trump was
impeached twice.
A US President can be impeached for overreaching his/ her
authority, giving aide to our enemies, or high crimes and
misdemeanors (a vague standard.) As an example, Pres.
Truman relieved General Douglas MacAuthur of his com-
mand in the Korean war for insubordination. MacAuthur
was v popular and some thought Truman should have
been impeached for this. Some thought Reagan deserved
impeachment for Iran-Contra?
Talk of an impeachment would start in the US House in the
House Judiciary Committee (HJC). They would prepare
'articles of impeachment' and then vote on each one. Then
the House as a whole votes. So the House charges the
President & the Senate votes & removes the President from
office. If all Constitutional steps were followed. Senate must
have 67 of 100 (total) votes for Senators to remove the
President from office. If they lack 67 votes, the President is
acquitted. Once he's removed, he can never again hold a
job with the federal government.
3 Presidents discussed : Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon,
& Bill Clinton. (Trump was mentioned briefly.) Johnson was
impeached by the House but acquitted by Senate. Nixon
:House Judiciary Committee voted yes on the charges,
except on expanding the Vietnam war to Cambodia. Nixon
resigned before it went to a vote in the whole House. So
technically he was not impeached. Clinton was impeached,
but acquitted by the Senate.
The authors explained that impeachment can have a political
rationale by opposing party. Andrew Johnson was impeached
before the articles of impeachment were written! The House
came up with 11 articles after-the-fact. The House mainly
complained he violated the Tenure of Office Act, over the
Secretary of War. However, the Republicans wanted him out,
b/c bigoted Johnson refused to honor the Reconstruction Act
(after the Civil War) giving black people more freedom.
Judge John Sirica, lead the Watergate grand jury. He told his
clerk "Somebody's lying in my courtroom." President Nixon
and his attorneys didn't cooperate w/ Judge Sirica or the
HJC. Nixon had select transcripts made of his Presidential
audio tapes and then edited the transcripts himself! Trained
atty Nixon knew this was obstruction of justice!!! The tapes
had evidence against him.
If only 1 of 6 articles of impeachment gets a "yes" vote in
committee, it still moves forward from HJC to the House as
a whole for a vote on impeachment.
passages. This is the 3rd book I've read on this subject.
This had a 2018 copyright, before President Trump was
impeached twice.
A US President can be impeached for overreaching his/ her
authority, giving aide to our enemies, or high crimes and
misdemeanors (a vague standard.) As an example, Pres.
Truman relieved General Douglas MacAuthur of his com-
mand in the Korean war for insubordination. MacAuthur
was v popular and some thought Truman should have
been impeached for this. Some thought Reagan deserved
impeachment for Iran-Contra?
Talk of an impeachment would start in the US House in the
House Judiciary Committee (HJC). They would prepare
'articles of impeachment' and then vote on each one. Then
the House as a whole votes. So the House charges the
President & the Senate votes & removes the President from
office. If all Constitutional steps were followed. Senate must
have 67 of 100 (total) votes for Senators to remove the
President from office. If they lack 67 votes, the President is
acquitted. Once he's removed, he can never again hold a
job with the federal government.
3 Presidents discussed : Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon,
& Bill Clinton. (Trump was mentioned briefly.) Johnson was
impeached by the House but acquitted by Senate. Nixon
:House Judiciary Committee voted yes on the charges,
except on expanding the Vietnam war to Cambodia. Nixon
resigned before it went to a vote in the whole House. So
technically he was not impeached. Clinton was impeached,
but acquitted by the Senate.
The authors explained that impeachment can have a political
rationale by opposing party. Andrew Johnson was impeached
before the articles of impeachment were written! The House
came up with 11 articles after-the-fact. The House mainly
complained he violated the Tenure of Office Act, over the
Secretary of War. However, the Republicans wanted him out,
b/c bigoted Johnson refused to honor the Reconstruction Act
(after the Civil War) giving black people more freedom.
Judge John Sirica, lead the Watergate grand jury. He told his
clerk "Somebody's lying in my courtroom." President Nixon
and his attorneys didn't cooperate w/ Judge Sirica or the
HJC. Nixon had select transcripts made of his Presidential
audio tapes and then edited the transcripts himself! Trained
atty Nixon knew this was obstruction of justice!!! The tapes
had evidence against him.
If only 1 of 6 articles of impeachment gets a "yes" vote in
committee, it still moves forward from HJC to the House as
a whole for a vote on impeachment.
March 1, 2019
Brief but concise, this handy overview (just published by Modern Library) offers a satisfying breakdown of the components of a last-resort tool which, so far, has only been used to completion once. There was an attempt to impeach Andrew Johnson (the votes were short); then Nixon (who saw the writing on the wall and resigned); then Clinton (when impeachment was realized). (As well, impeachment rumblings began for a few other presidents but soon died out.)
Throughout US government history, impeachment is an action that has either energized politicians considerably or made them inordinately nervous - each depending on what was thought to be gained or lost by it. ~and that was an outcome that could never be anticipated for sure.
It was originally conceived as a guard against absolute tyranny. Over time, it has been determined that it can be hard to decipher what constitutes tyranny - or what can start as a separate offense which could lead to tyranny, or some form of undermining the country. Cause for impeachment has loosened. (Of course, as seen through its original purpose, it has currently strengthened... more than considerably.)
For those who have access to impeachment as an option, it's never a relatively simple matter of "You've gone too far, so we'll vote on 'Out you go!'" The burden of proof rests not only on "What is too far?" but what genuinely motivated that (can that even be known?) and, more importantly, what is the extent of harm likely to befall Americans as a unified people.
To say the least - once set in motion, it's an intricate undertaking. It was just as intricate an idea when the original Constitution's designers were, for months, figuring out how to define impeachment as something uniquely necessary.
For me, one of the best but most frustrating results of this kind of walk through history is the reminder that people... never... change. Everything else - i.e., global advancement, technology - changes, but not people. There are always those with a fundamental urge for progress - and those with just the opposite: growth-stunting pride. Given the opportunity, the former would use impeachment to legitimately thwart the latter; the latter would use it for spite.
Though this volume is short, it's still a bit of a challenge - mainly because, in spite of its singular focus, it makes us think of the many power games employed by Congress - the arena of little but power games.
Throughout US government history, impeachment is an action that has either energized politicians considerably or made them inordinately nervous - each depending on what was thought to be gained or lost by it. ~and that was an outcome that could never be anticipated for sure.
It was originally conceived as a guard against absolute tyranny. Over time, it has been determined that it can be hard to decipher what constitutes tyranny - or what can start as a separate offense which could lead to tyranny, or some form of undermining the country. Cause for impeachment has loosened. (Of course, as seen through its original purpose, it has currently strengthened... more than considerably.)
For those who have access to impeachment as an option, it's never a relatively simple matter of "You've gone too far, so we'll vote on 'Out you go!'" The burden of proof rests not only on "What is too far?" but what genuinely motivated that (can that even be known?) and, more importantly, what is the extent of harm likely to befall Americans as a unified people.
To say the least - once set in motion, it's an intricate undertaking. It was just as intricate an idea when the original Constitution's designers were, for months, figuring out how to define impeachment as something uniquely necessary.
For me, one of the best but most frustrating results of this kind of walk through history is the reminder that people... never... change. Everything else - i.e., global advancement, technology - changes, but not people. There are always those with a fundamental urge for progress - and those with just the opposite: growth-stunting pride. Given the opportunity, the former would use impeachment to legitimately thwart the latter; the latter would use it for spite.
Though this volume is short, it's still a bit of a challenge - mainly because, in spite of its singular focus, it makes us think of the many power games employed by Congress - the arena of little but power games.
February 17, 2020
Four authors contributed to a detailed examination of the reasons, processes, and outcomes of the impeachments and near-impeachments of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. Jeffrey Engel also provided beginning and ending chapters discussing the philosophy and thinking of the Founding Fathers as well as implications for the future. Highly recommended.
January 20, 2019
"Impeachment: An American History" is a wonderful examination, unbiased analysis, and historical perspective on the process of impeachment. It is quite a relevant subject at the moment and for anyone seriously interested in the "pros and cons"of impeachment, and why the Founders found it necessary to include it in the Constitution, well, then this is a book for you.
July 8, 2019
Four distinguished historians and constitutional scholars consider the unique role of presidential impeachment by the Congress in American jurisprudence. Jeffrey Engel, founding Director of the Center for Presidential History at SMU, first discusses how impeachment found its way into the Constitution. Convinced that, with the exception of George Washington, all chief executives seek to increase their power and influence and become kings, the framers not only included checks and balances but also formulated impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate as a way of removing a president who exceeds his authority or is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Pulitzer Prize winning presidential historian and biographer Jon Meacham discusses the impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson by Republicans for pursuing a course of action toward the defeated South and the newly freed slaves far different from Lincoln's and contrary to the wishes of Congress. His narrow acquittal by the Senate indicate that impeachment is not to be used in cases of incompetence or policy disagreements.
Timothy Naftali, founding Director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, analyzes the case against Richard Nixon as he attempted to conceal his complicity in the Watergate break in and bugging of the Democratic headquarters. The move to impeach him for obstruction of justice that resulted in his forced resignation demonstrated the importance that both parties need to be on board for an impeachment to succeed.
Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for the NY Times, discusses the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury for lying about his tawdry Oval Office affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Did his misbehavior rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors?" His acquittal by the Senate demonstrated that impeachment is impossible without the approval of members of both parties and the American people
This well written book concludes with Jeffrey Engel discussing the status and role of impeachment at this point in our history in the light of these precedents and the implications with regard to the possible impeachment of our present president, Donald Trump.
Pulitzer Prize winning presidential historian and biographer Jon Meacham discusses the impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson by Republicans for pursuing a course of action toward the defeated South and the newly freed slaves far different from Lincoln's and contrary to the wishes of Congress. His narrow acquittal by the Senate indicate that impeachment is not to be used in cases of incompetence or policy disagreements.
Timothy Naftali, founding Director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, analyzes the case against Richard Nixon as he attempted to conceal his complicity in the Watergate break in and bugging of the Democratic headquarters. The move to impeach him for obstruction of justice that resulted in his forced resignation demonstrated the importance that both parties need to be on board for an impeachment to succeed.
Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for the NY Times, discusses the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury for lying about his tawdry Oval Office affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Did his misbehavior rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors?" His acquittal by the Senate demonstrated that impeachment is impossible without the approval of members of both parties and the American people
This well written book concludes with Jeffrey Engel discussing the status and role of impeachment at this point in our history in the light of these precedents and the implications with regard to the possible impeachment of our present president, Donald Trump.
October 23, 2018
I received this book compliments of Random House through the Goodreads giveaway program.
"What does the history of impeachment reveal about its potential?"
That's the question that prompted this book and the ensuing exploration of the subject is fascinating.
Although they realized a stronger central government was necessary, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were really wary of the Presidency becoming a vehicle for a tyrant to take control. They considered how to deal with such a situation and settled on impeachment. Realizing that it would be an extremely serious action they didn't make it easy.
Three presidents have faced impeachment. Each case had a different cause and was handled differently. There were repercussions for all sides and all players. It's stressful for the entire nation. Public attitudes toward government and the media are affected and don't 'go back to how they were'. The chapters on Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton explain the politics and strategies of each episode. The mechanics are interesting on their own, but also illustrative of the consequences. It would seem that so far the constitutional provision for impeachment has held up pretty well. After reading this book I hope that politicians now and in the future take impeachment as seriously as the men who wrote it into the Constitution.
"What does the history of impeachment reveal about its potential?"
That's the question that prompted this book and the ensuing exploration of the subject is fascinating.
Although they realized a stronger central government was necessary, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were really wary of the Presidency becoming a vehicle for a tyrant to take control. They considered how to deal with such a situation and settled on impeachment. Realizing that it would be an extremely serious action they didn't make it easy.
Three presidents have faced impeachment. Each case had a different cause and was handled differently. There were repercussions for all sides and all players. It's stressful for the entire nation. Public attitudes toward government and the media are affected and don't 'go back to how they were'. The chapters on Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton explain the politics and strategies of each episode. The mechanics are interesting on their own, but also illustrative of the consequences. It would seem that so far the constitutional provision for impeachment has held up pretty well. After reading this book I hope that politicians now and in the future take impeachment as seriously as the men who wrote it into the Constitution.
January 16, 2020
A very timely book, considering where we are in the first days of 2020. As I write this, on this very day the House is transmitting articles of impeachment to the Senate.
This book succinctly (for the most part) gives the history and thought behind the Impeachment section of the US Constitution and the essence of the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton and the near impeachment of Richard Nixon. The final chapter has some thoughts about Donald Trump's situation, written shortly before the 2018 mid-term election and the subsequent presentation of the completed Mueller Report. It seems apparent that author Engel felt (at the time of writing, at least) that a Trump impeachment for Russian collusion was warranted. However, he doesn't dwell on that conclusion. He mostly discusses how the 3 prior impeachment episodes relate to today's undertakings.
I give the book 5 stars because the book is very timely and covers its subject matter very well. Engel in the first chapter traces the origins of the impeachment concept and gives insight into the debates among our Founding Fathers on the topic. He discusses how impeachment could have made the President very much like a Prime Minister who serves at the pleasure of the legislature, and the founders emphatically did not want that. He discusses what makes a crime a "high" crime, and why "maladministration" was ultimately rejected as a reason for impeachment.
I knew little about the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. Author Jon Meacham lays out the events and the issues very well. In many ways, the Trump impeachment is more similar to the Johnson impeachment than to that of Nixon or Clinton. The post Civil War Congress repeatedly sought to remove Johnson from office because he was (a) a disagreeable person, (b) he was pursuing policies much different from those of Lincoln, and (c) he was exercising the power of his office in a way Congress (and many citizens of the North) did not like.
The Nixon and Clinton stories are more familiar to today's readers. I was in my late teens during the Nixon affair. I appreciated having the refresher on the sequence of events and the specific issues in play. One point here is that popular sentiment can change quickly. Nixon maintained popular and Senatorial support all through the investigation until the last couple of weeks following bombshell revelations from the Oval Offices tapes. The lesson for Trump is that, if the "right" facts emerge, his outlook could change very quickly for the worse. It would have to be something pretty dramatic, but who knows what will yet come to light in Trump's case? (As I write this, no one is expecting the Senate to remove Trump from office. To be removed, he would have to lose the votes of 20 of the 53 GOP senators and all 47 Democratic senators [if I have my numbers right]. The current consensus is that Trump might lose at most 4 Republican senators and might pick up 1 or 2 Democratic votes.)
I highly recommend this book to all US readers and to those non-US readers interested in learning more about this somewhat arcane but very relevant American topic. The first chapter alone is very worthwhile if you want a better understanding of the Constitutional underpinnings of the great American experiment in self government. (Don't scoff. The more I learn about our nation's founding, the more amazed and appreciative I am.)
The book is a relatively short read (less than 250 small-format pages), packed with information.
This book succinctly (for the most part) gives the history and thought behind the Impeachment section of the US Constitution and the essence of the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton and the near impeachment of Richard Nixon. The final chapter has some thoughts about Donald Trump's situation, written shortly before the 2018 mid-term election and the subsequent presentation of the completed Mueller Report. It seems apparent that author Engel felt (at the time of writing, at least) that a Trump impeachment for Russian collusion was warranted. However, he doesn't dwell on that conclusion. He mostly discusses how the 3 prior impeachment episodes relate to today's undertakings.
I give the book 5 stars because the book is very timely and covers its subject matter very well. Engel in the first chapter traces the origins of the impeachment concept and gives insight into the debates among our Founding Fathers on the topic. He discusses how impeachment could have made the President very much like a Prime Minister who serves at the pleasure of the legislature, and the founders emphatically did not want that. He discusses what makes a crime a "high" crime, and why "maladministration" was ultimately rejected as a reason for impeachment.
I knew little about the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. Author Jon Meacham lays out the events and the issues very well. In many ways, the Trump impeachment is more similar to the Johnson impeachment than to that of Nixon or Clinton. The post Civil War Congress repeatedly sought to remove Johnson from office because he was (a) a disagreeable person, (b) he was pursuing policies much different from those of Lincoln, and (c) he was exercising the power of his office in a way Congress (and many citizens of the North) did not like.
The Nixon and Clinton stories are more familiar to today's readers. I was in my late teens during the Nixon affair. I appreciated having the refresher on the sequence of events and the specific issues in play. One point here is that popular sentiment can change quickly. Nixon maintained popular and Senatorial support all through the investigation until the last couple of weeks following bombshell revelations from the Oval Offices tapes. The lesson for Trump is that, if the "right" facts emerge, his outlook could change very quickly for the worse. It would have to be something pretty dramatic, but who knows what will yet come to light in Trump's case? (As I write this, no one is expecting the Senate to remove Trump from office. To be removed, he would have to lose the votes of 20 of the 53 GOP senators and all 47 Democratic senators [if I have my numbers right]. The current consensus is that Trump might lose at most 4 Republican senators and might pick up 1 or 2 Democratic votes.)
I highly recommend this book to all US readers and to those non-US readers interested in learning more about this somewhat arcane but very relevant American topic. The first chapter alone is very worthwhile if you want a better understanding of the Constitutional underpinnings of the great American experiment in self government. (Don't scoff. The more I learn about our nation's founding, the more amazed and appreciative I am.)
The book is a relatively short read (less than 250 small-format pages), packed with information.
January 23, 2024
An uneven book. The good news is that the quality declines over time so if one reaches the point that they’re indifferent on whether to read given the quality, there’s no likelihood they will miss out on content they’d otherwise enjoy.
The strongest elements of the book related to the brief sketch of framer conceptions of high crimes and misdemeanors and the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. The weakest element is a tie between the discussion of Clinton’s impeachment and the digressions on Trump.
While the discussions of the founding era were a bright spot, I did think they skipped consideration of points relevant to impeachment in our constitutional structure: I) the use of impeachment in old England to hold the kings advisors accountable; ii) discussion in the federalist papers that criminal prosecution of a president could not occur until after leaving office; iii) impeachment being a natural consequence of a national government with three co-equal branches of government. Lighting this path would have made a more natural discussion of the subsequent impeachment efforts and whether they all shared foot-faults with the text and structure of the Constitution*
*the allegation against Johnson being his violation of the tenure-in-office act, a statute infringing on the vested powers of the president to choose cabinet secretaries.
*Nixon’s obstruction case deriving from an unprecedented request for presidential records of an ordinary criminal case;
*Clinton’s perjury article of impeachment deriving from an independent counsel that existed far outside the expected structure of government (appointed by the judiciary with the power to investigate the executive with a roving authority).
The strongest elements of the book related to the brief sketch of framer conceptions of high crimes and misdemeanors and the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. The weakest element is a tie between the discussion of Clinton’s impeachment and the digressions on Trump.
While the discussions of the founding era were a bright spot, I did think they skipped consideration of points relevant to impeachment in our constitutional structure: I) the use of impeachment in old England to hold the kings advisors accountable; ii) discussion in the federalist papers that criminal prosecution of a president could not occur until after leaving office; iii) impeachment being a natural consequence of a national government with three co-equal branches of government. Lighting this path would have made a more natural discussion of the subsequent impeachment efforts and whether they all shared foot-faults with the text and structure of the Constitution*
*the allegation against Johnson being his violation of the tenure-in-office act, a statute infringing on the vested powers of the president to choose cabinet secretaries.
*Nixon’s obstruction case deriving from an unprecedented request for presidential records of an ordinary criminal case;
*Clinton’s perjury article of impeachment deriving from an independent counsel that existed far outside the expected structure of government (appointed by the judiciary with the power to investigate the executive with a roving authority).
January 8, 2020
”You better start educating your people that impeachment is not a conviction. A vote for impeachment is a vote for a trial.”(Rep. Caldwell Butler, July 1974)
Not the most fascinating book that I’ve read. The introduction and conclusion from Jeffrey Engel are good bookends, both setting the stage at the Constitutional Convention and the future of America.
Jon Meacham’s essay on Andrew Johnson was dry, and I wish I knew more about the Reconstruction.
Timothy Naftali’s essay on Richard Nixon was also dry, and I struggled to read it, even with the background of having read All the President’s Men.
Peter Baker’s essay on Bill Clinton was the easiest to follow, probably because I lived through it, and the most evenly handled.
All the essays emphasized that impeachment is strictly a political process that is dependent on party lines, Congress people’s willingness to cross them, and, most importantly, citizens’ judgment on the proceedings, and not a comment on a president’s alleged wrongdoings.
So long as there are doubts, there is always another election.(Jeffrey Engel)
October 5, 2018
I found this book to be fascinating in that each section was written by a different author/researcher except to the opening and conclusion which were both done by Jeffrey A. Engel. Jon Meacham addresses the circumstances surrounding the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson and does a good job highlighting that it was more of a political attack at that time than one of committing high crimes and misdemeanors. Timothy Nafatli wrote about the near impeachment of Richard Nixon where there was a much more clear case of high crimes and misdemeanors revolving around the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover up along with numerous other questionable activities. Peter Baker digs into the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton and whether or not his actions met the test of high crimes and misdemeanors which the Senate eventually determined they did not. Jeffrey Engel does address the potential or lack thereof of an impeachment of the current president.
I recommend this book for anyone with an interest in the impeachment process and how it has been used and abused in our political system.
I received a free Kindle copy of Impeachment: An American History by Jeffrey A. Engel, Jon Meacham, Peter Baker and Timothy Naftali courtesy of Net Galley and Random House, the publisher. It was with the understanding that I would post a review on Net Galley, Goodreads, Amazon and my fiction book review blog. I also posted it to my Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google Plus pages.
I requested this book as I am an avid read of american history and this book presented a perspective that I have not previously read about.
I recommend this book for anyone with an interest in the impeachment process and how it has been used and abused in our political system.
I received a free Kindle copy of Impeachment: An American History by Jeffrey A. Engel, Jon Meacham, Peter Baker and Timothy Naftali courtesy of Net Galley and Random House, the publisher. It was with the understanding that I would post a review on Net Galley, Goodreads, Amazon and my fiction book review blog. I also posted it to my Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google Plus pages.
I requested this book as I am an avid read of american history and this book presented a perspective that I have not previously read about.
January 6, 2021
Covers the real considerations behind impeachment, and provides excellent reviews of the incidences of impeachment proceedings previous to Trump. It's amazing how dated the opening and closing chapters can feel in the aftermath of the Trump impeachment and subsequent loss in the following election, but Jeffrey Engel did an excellent job looking ahead, even though he couldn't have known the exact charges or series of events leading to the Trump impeachment at the time. Highly recommend.
January 22, 2019
Very informative book at the history of impeachment and the complexity of the process. The book use three historical examples, which gives the reader more insight into each case.
Great book and very timely. All authors were great and anything involving Jon Meacham will be worth a read.
Thanks to #NetGalley for a copy for an honest review
Great book and very timely. All authors were great and anything involving Jon Meacham will be worth a read.
Thanks to #NetGalley for a copy for an honest review
August 22, 2019
Good solid information on impeachment from the beginning of the Constitution through Presidents Johnston, Nixon, Clinton and Trump. Fascinating facts and interesting quarreling politicians makes it a good read.
October 12, 2019
Great, quick history of impeachment in America. I thought I knew the broad strokes of previous impeachment stories pretty well, but this book fills in the gaps with lots of details and engaging writing.
January 20, 2019
Very solid book tracing the impeachment proceedings of Jackson, Nixon, Clinton, and giving us a view of what could happen with Trump. I went to a talk not expecting to buy the book but was roped in by their narrative. Three of the 4 chapters were exactly what I was looking for - a story of what happened with the legal analysis. But the Nixon chapter sadly dragged on - there was too much emphasis on dates, without a more comprehensive look of the storyline. It gave me insights into how Trump impeachment may play out, with the lesson that bipartisanship is key, and that impeachment is a political not a legal process.
November 17, 2018
A look back at what the founding fathers intended for impeachment to be. This book was very well done and without bias. It’s a fact-based view of 3 impeachments and the actions and politics that led up to them.
September 20, 2020
Quick primer on the history of Presidential impeachment - with discussion of potential charges against President Trump.
February 12, 2019
It feels very strange to read history that I remember (well, except for the founding fathers and the Andrew Johnson part). Very well done.
September 14, 2025
Impeachment is the necessary bulwark the Founding Fathers placed in the United States Constitution to ensure someone unfit to be president of the United States would not remain in the office — their behavior so egregious, encompassing any manner of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, and so deleterious to the body politic of America, that the next election cycle would not suffice. The fatal flaw in the Founders’ plan, which they couldn’t have conceived, was that Congress, who holds the power to remove presidents and judges (which is why I always argue they wield the most power among the three “co-equal” branches in theory), would not care to hold such an egregious person accountable and remove them from office via the impeachment mechanism. That such people, like the president themselves, would place party over country, their self-enrichment and advancement over the betterment of the country. Impeachment: An American History is a 2018 book by Jeffrey Engel, Jon Meacham, Timothy Naftali, and Peter Baker that takes readers through the history of impeachment during the Founding Era through to its first attempted use on President Andrew Johnson, then Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton in the modern era. The book was written, obviously, prior to Trump’s first impeachment in 2020 related to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Of course, impeachment talks permeated the political discourse before Trump assumed office after winning the presidential election in November 2016 (for good reason, mind you).
Engel is a historian of presidential history; Meacham is a historian, noted for his presidential biographies; Naftali is a historian who has written about the Cold War and counterterrorism; and Baker is a reporter with The New York Times, who covered Clinton’s impeachment in real time, the basis of his first book, and has reported on five other presidents. The way the book is constructed, Engel covers the Founding Era and the conclusion; Meacham covers the impeachment of Johnson; Naftali the impeachment of Nixon; and naturally, Baker the impeachment of Clinton. In my Notes app, I jotted down this question at the start of the audiobook: Does impeachment disrupt the political process, as they claim, or does the act worthy of impeachment itself do that? To me, that is the question always at the heart of impeachment and in general, holding politicians accountable. In the United States, even though we purport to say nobody is above the law, in practice, the president is above the law. We prefer them to be pardoned for any crimes (Nixon) or to “look forward instead of backward” instead of litigating the past (Obama as it regarded Bush and torture) and it certainly would be beyond the pale to actually send a former president to prison for attempting a coup (see: former Brazil president Jair Bolsonaro or former South Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol, both examples just from 2025). Given I asked the question, you know where I stand: it is the corrupt president who corrodes that body politic, not the attempts to hold that individual accountable, be it impeachment, criminal charges, or prison time. To be fair, part of the authors’ argument that impeachment itself can be corrosive is when, for example, Clinton’s three GOP-led impeachment politicians were hypocrites, i.e., having secret extra-marital affairs of their own. They also say that it is an interesting counterfactual to wonder how the 21st century would have unfolded had a.) Clinton not shown it was possible to ride out a scandal instead of stepping down; and b.) those GOP politicians weren’t hypocrites. In other words, one could make a compelling throughline argument for Clinton’s successful effort to stave off impeachment for personal moral failings (and rise in popularity during the impeachment) led to Trump. That is too simplistic in many ways, but it certainly also didn’t help matters that Trump literally faced Clinton’s wife, Hillary, in the 2016 presidential election, either.
Before I go further, let me make my position on impeachment abundantly clear. My interpretation of the authors’ viewpoint is that impeachment should be rarely and solemnly used because, again, its very use is damaging to the body politic. My position is that our country would be in better shape if we, as the public, and Congress as the stewards of the public will, utilized impeachment far more often to hold corrupt presidents accountable. The downstream effect, then, ideally, would be ensuring better people occupy that office. If we’ve learned anything from the Trump years, it is that we’ve taken for granted how much that particular office (for the purposes of this discussion) relied upon assuming people of good character occupied it.
Speaking of people of good character and where that assumption came from, as should be no surprise to anyone with a modicum of understanding about our Founding Era, for the founding fathers, who were far more diverse in thought on how to organize a government than hagiographic portrayals of them may indicate, the one item they could agree upon: George Washington was their paradigm for what would make a good president. They were clear-eyed that not every president would match this paradigm (and clear-eyed that Washington himself was not perfect), but it served as a way to understand that severe deviations from it could and should result in impeachment from office. It can never be emphasized enough the two most remarkable things Washington did that were without precedent in the history of the world. First, he led an army against the greatest empire known to man at that point with sometimes the sheer force of his will, won, and then gave up that power. Second, after being president for two terms, despite their not yet being a 22nd Amendment establishing a two-term limit on the presidency, Washington stepped down from power, establishing that norm until the 1947 Amendment. Extraordinary.
Again, the Founders worried about an executive whose very presence “would become too much a cancer on the Republic and need to be removed.” While time may seem like a better remedy when the people voted for the person, sometimes a person’s nefariousness cannot be endured (a paraphrase, I believe, of Engel’s words). But of course, then, we have to parse what the Founders meant by the words they used in the impeachment clause. We understand treason and bribery well enough, but what about “and other high crimes and misdemeanors”? Contrary to what politicians, pundits, and the public decried throughout Trump’s two impeachments and even going back to Clinton’s, the Founders did not necessarily mean literal, indictable crimes. Rather, “high crimes” refers to a crime against the Republic, however that is determined and to whatever extent the severity. Similarly, misdemeanors are an assault against civil society and government itself. The person accused of such “crimes” violates the public trust and the duties of their office. Another way of stating all of this is that, again, contrary to the aforementioned outcries, of course impeachment is a political act and determination! Because it is a political question of whether the president is violating the public trust and their sworn duties as an officeholder. One of the biggest misunderstandings regarding impeachment is that the president has to have committed an actual crime to be impeached. (The second biggest is that the Nixon years made us expect a specific “smoking gun” that would lead to impeachment. What if the president (Trump) was regularly acknowledging smoking guns instead? He’s unprecedented in that, there is no attempt at a cover-up. It’s all out in the open. And yet.
I’ve long said I need to read more about the post-Civil War period in American life, Reconstruction, and how President Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Abraham Lincoln after his 1865 assassination, undercut Reconstruction’s efforts. That’s why I enjoyed this first section on Johnson by Meacham. For an example of how Johnson stymied Reconstruction’s efforts, he opposed the 14th Amendment, which grants U.S. citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the country (birthright citizenship). That very amendment is under attack again. Republicans were ready to reignite the Civil War, in a manner of speaking, over Johnson’s action rather than have “treason and traitors triumph.” Not that I would have wanted America to continue having eruptions of war amongst its own people, but ultimately, we did let “treason and traitors triumph” for the next 100 years. These Republicans feared, for good reason, that our experiment in democracy was over, the presidency was losing legitimacy, and tribalism would win the day. Does any of that sound familiar?
Impeachment against Johnson was initiated by the House of Representatives in 1868, primarily over the charge that Johnson violated the Tenure of Office Act by removing Edwin Stanton from his position as Secretary of War. The Senate didn’t want Johnson removing department secretaries without their consent. Again, I love reading about a period where Congress is opposing the president at every turn for his malfeasance. I also wonder how historians ultimately feel about Lincoln putting Johnson on his ticket as vice president (where he showed up to inauguration day drunk). Is it Lincoln’s greatest mistake? Or would he not have even made it to the presidency without Johnson on the ticket? Nonetheless, Johnson was impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate, which has a much higher bar for impeachment than the House (a supermajority, or two-thirds of the Senate). Meacham said the legacy of Johnson’s impeachment is that Congress can’t impeach a president merely for not liking his policies, style or character, and administration of his office. What this first impeachment of a president portended for the next 100 or so years was that impeachment had a high bar to clear and it almost had the connotation of being uncouth. It was a mistake to have used it. Meacham said if the impeachment had gone through, then it would have ensured “Congressional supremacy.” To which I say, good! Our system would likely be better if we stopped concentrating so much power and attention to one person and one office, which then has the corollary that, when that person uses the office to enrich themselves or otherwise debase it, it has outsized deleterious effects on the country.
I was fairly familiar with Nixon’s impeachment for the Watergate break-in, which is really the story of his impeachment for attempting to cover-up the Watergate break-in, after reading Garrett M. Graff’s fantastic 2022 book, Watergate: A New History. Still, I found Naftali’s section on Nixon interesting. We obviously tend to overlook that impeachment was ramping up against Nixon because he ultimately resigned office, the first president to do so. But impeachment was ramping up and it’s likely had Nixon not resigned, he would have been the first president impeached and removed from office. There are two fascinating items about Watergate I want to highlight: 1.) The break-in occurred in June 1972 and being percolating therein. Nixon would be re-elected later that year in a landslide win against George McGovern. I find solace in that, to some extent, given our current situation. 2.) Most Americans were not paying attention to the Watergate scandal, despite dogged reporting, and even after 16 months of this scandal going on, nobody in Congress was seriously considering impeachment until the Saturday Night Massacre on October 20, 1973, where a number of resignations at the Department of Justice occurred after Nixon dismissed special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Again, it was the cover-up that doomed Nixon. What’s so darkly amusing to me is that impeaching Nixon for the Watergate cover-up made sense, but impeaching him for tax evasion and the bombing of Cambodia? That was seen as a bridge too far. Politics is weird. The takeaway Naftali had about Nixon’s impending impeachment was the bipartisan nature of it between Democrats and Republicans. Spoiler alert, but in Clinton’s, everything was largely divided along party lines, and today, during Trump’s second administration, no Republican would dare try to oust him. That said, during the prior Trump administration, we did see the first Republican Senator to vote to convict a president of his own party for impeachment with Mitt Romney of Donald Trump during his second impeachment in January 2021.
Clinton is such a sleazeball. Every time I hear or read anything about him, I walk away thinking that. And it’s not just the sleaziness — the affairs with women going back to the 1970s, including alleged sexual misconduct, and of course, the power dynamic of the Monica Lewinsky affair, making it dubious whether it was truly consensual — but also the hubris to do it while president and then become indignant when anyone attempts to call it out. Again, you see the blueprint Clinton and the Democrats of the 1990s created used during the Trump years. Disheartening, to say the least. There is even a throughline going into the past with Clinton: He was galvanized by Nixon’s villainy to run for Congress, which ultimately failed, and notably, Clinton was already cheating on Hillary at that point.
The impeachment of Clinton started with the Paula Jones civil lawsuit, where she alleged Clinton sexually harassed her in 1991 while he was Arkansas Governor and she a state employee. During discovery for that suit, Clinton perjured himself regarding his sexual relationship with Lewinsky. In September 1998, the Starr Report came out by Ken Starr, the independent counsel for the House Judiciary Committee. The report sought to demonstrate a pattern from Clinton of these affairs and attempted cover-ups. Clinton lied for seven months not only to the public, but his own family, prior to August 1998, where he admitted to it in a grand jury testimony. Clinton’s poll numbers went up anyway. After the scandal broke, support for Clinton was at 71 percent (which is difficult to imagine a president receiving that today!). Public support did dip to 55 percent after the Starr Report, but went back up to 71 percent after the House approved two articles of impeachment against Clinton. Essentially, the public thinking was, yes, he’s a sleazebag, but what does that have to do with his job as president? We hear this defense now. Clinton was impeached by the House, but like Johnson, acquitted by the Senate. Would I have voted to impeach Clinton and remove him from office? Yes. I say that not even with the hindsight of the parallels to his story and that of Trump’s. If we truly believe a president is not above the law, then we need to act like it.
[I mentioned before the hypocrisy of the GOP, who were attempting to persecute the case against Clinton. New Gingrich, the House Speaker at the time, engaged in an extra-marital affair with a House of Representatives staffer in 1993 (and while his wife had cancer). Bob Livingston was going to succeed Gingrich as House Speaker until he declined after revelations of his own extramarital affair. Tom Delay, the House Majority Whip, was another one. Another Republican, Dan Burton, fathered a child during his adultery. Dennis Hastert, who became House Speaker after Gingrich, was later convicted for hush money payments to teenage boys he’d sexually abused.]
It goes without saying where I stand on the Trump presidency, especially given how I stand on impeachment. Any number of items at this point ought to be impeachable offenses during Trump’s second administration (enriching himself through cryptocurrency, mobilizing the military in L.A., the kidnapping and deportation of U.S. residents to foreign prisons, his actions on tariffs, defying court orders, his campaign of retribution at the Justice Department, dismantling federal agencies, and on and on and on it goes, and yes, I would impeach him for this, too). But in a sane world, a.) he never would have become president in 2016 in the first place; and b.) accepting the former, he would have been barred from ever holding elected office again after Jan. 6 and his second impeachment, and then faced his myriad criminal charges. Alas.
If you want a better understanding of American history, impeachment, find solace in other turbulent times in America that we eventually moved past, and want to become an ardent supportive of the impeachment power like me, then Impeachment: An American History is a nice primer on the cases of Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton, and what lessons to draw in our present day.
Engel is a historian of presidential history; Meacham is a historian, noted for his presidential biographies; Naftali is a historian who has written about the Cold War and counterterrorism; and Baker is a reporter with The New York Times, who covered Clinton’s impeachment in real time, the basis of his first book, and has reported on five other presidents. The way the book is constructed, Engel covers the Founding Era and the conclusion; Meacham covers the impeachment of Johnson; Naftali the impeachment of Nixon; and naturally, Baker the impeachment of Clinton. In my Notes app, I jotted down this question at the start of the audiobook: Does impeachment disrupt the political process, as they claim, or does the act worthy of impeachment itself do that? To me, that is the question always at the heart of impeachment and in general, holding politicians accountable. In the United States, even though we purport to say nobody is above the law, in practice, the president is above the law. We prefer them to be pardoned for any crimes (Nixon) or to “look forward instead of backward” instead of litigating the past (Obama as it regarded Bush and torture) and it certainly would be beyond the pale to actually send a former president to prison for attempting a coup (see: former Brazil president Jair Bolsonaro or former South Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol, both examples just from 2025). Given I asked the question, you know where I stand: it is the corrupt president who corrodes that body politic, not the attempts to hold that individual accountable, be it impeachment, criminal charges, or prison time. To be fair, part of the authors’ argument that impeachment itself can be corrosive is when, for example, Clinton’s three GOP-led impeachment politicians were hypocrites, i.e., having secret extra-marital affairs of their own. They also say that it is an interesting counterfactual to wonder how the 21st century would have unfolded had a.) Clinton not shown it was possible to ride out a scandal instead of stepping down; and b.) those GOP politicians weren’t hypocrites. In other words, one could make a compelling throughline argument for Clinton’s successful effort to stave off impeachment for personal moral failings (and rise in popularity during the impeachment) led to Trump. That is too simplistic in many ways, but it certainly also didn’t help matters that Trump literally faced Clinton’s wife, Hillary, in the 2016 presidential election, either.
Before I go further, let me make my position on impeachment abundantly clear. My interpretation of the authors’ viewpoint is that impeachment should be rarely and solemnly used because, again, its very use is damaging to the body politic. My position is that our country would be in better shape if we, as the public, and Congress as the stewards of the public will, utilized impeachment far more often to hold corrupt presidents accountable. The downstream effect, then, ideally, would be ensuring better people occupy that office. If we’ve learned anything from the Trump years, it is that we’ve taken for granted how much that particular office (for the purposes of this discussion) relied upon assuming people of good character occupied it.
Speaking of people of good character and where that assumption came from, as should be no surprise to anyone with a modicum of understanding about our Founding Era, for the founding fathers, who were far more diverse in thought on how to organize a government than hagiographic portrayals of them may indicate, the one item they could agree upon: George Washington was their paradigm for what would make a good president. They were clear-eyed that not every president would match this paradigm (and clear-eyed that Washington himself was not perfect), but it served as a way to understand that severe deviations from it could and should result in impeachment from office. It can never be emphasized enough the two most remarkable things Washington did that were without precedent in the history of the world. First, he led an army against the greatest empire known to man at that point with sometimes the sheer force of his will, won, and then gave up that power. Second, after being president for two terms, despite their not yet being a 22nd Amendment establishing a two-term limit on the presidency, Washington stepped down from power, establishing that norm until the 1947 Amendment. Extraordinary.
Again, the Founders worried about an executive whose very presence “would become too much a cancer on the Republic and need to be removed.” While time may seem like a better remedy when the people voted for the person, sometimes a person’s nefariousness cannot be endured (a paraphrase, I believe, of Engel’s words). But of course, then, we have to parse what the Founders meant by the words they used in the impeachment clause. We understand treason and bribery well enough, but what about “and other high crimes and misdemeanors”? Contrary to what politicians, pundits, and the public decried throughout Trump’s two impeachments and even going back to Clinton’s, the Founders did not necessarily mean literal, indictable crimes. Rather, “high crimes” refers to a crime against the Republic, however that is determined and to whatever extent the severity. Similarly, misdemeanors are an assault against civil society and government itself. The person accused of such “crimes” violates the public trust and the duties of their office. Another way of stating all of this is that, again, contrary to the aforementioned outcries, of course impeachment is a political act and determination! Because it is a political question of whether the president is violating the public trust and their sworn duties as an officeholder. One of the biggest misunderstandings regarding impeachment is that the president has to have committed an actual crime to be impeached. (The second biggest is that the Nixon years made us expect a specific “smoking gun” that would lead to impeachment. What if the president (Trump) was regularly acknowledging smoking guns instead? He’s unprecedented in that, there is no attempt at a cover-up. It’s all out in the open. And yet.
I’ve long said I need to read more about the post-Civil War period in American life, Reconstruction, and how President Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Abraham Lincoln after his 1865 assassination, undercut Reconstruction’s efforts. That’s why I enjoyed this first section on Johnson by Meacham. For an example of how Johnson stymied Reconstruction’s efforts, he opposed the 14th Amendment, which grants U.S. citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the country (birthright citizenship). That very amendment is under attack again. Republicans were ready to reignite the Civil War, in a manner of speaking, over Johnson’s action rather than have “treason and traitors triumph.” Not that I would have wanted America to continue having eruptions of war amongst its own people, but ultimately, we did let “treason and traitors triumph” for the next 100 years. These Republicans feared, for good reason, that our experiment in democracy was over, the presidency was losing legitimacy, and tribalism would win the day. Does any of that sound familiar?
Impeachment against Johnson was initiated by the House of Representatives in 1868, primarily over the charge that Johnson violated the Tenure of Office Act by removing Edwin Stanton from his position as Secretary of War. The Senate didn’t want Johnson removing department secretaries without their consent. Again, I love reading about a period where Congress is opposing the president at every turn for his malfeasance. I also wonder how historians ultimately feel about Lincoln putting Johnson on his ticket as vice president (where he showed up to inauguration day drunk). Is it Lincoln’s greatest mistake? Or would he not have even made it to the presidency without Johnson on the ticket? Nonetheless, Johnson was impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate, which has a much higher bar for impeachment than the House (a supermajority, or two-thirds of the Senate). Meacham said the legacy of Johnson’s impeachment is that Congress can’t impeach a president merely for not liking his policies, style or character, and administration of his office. What this first impeachment of a president portended for the next 100 or so years was that impeachment had a high bar to clear and it almost had the connotation of being uncouth. It was a mistake to have used it. Meacham said if the impeachment had gone through, then it would have ensured “Congressional supremacy.” To which I say, good! Our system would likely be better if we stopped concentrating so much power and attention to one person and one office, which then has the corollary that, when that person uses the office to enrich themselves or otherwise debase it, it has outsized deleterious effects on the country.
I was fairly familiar with Nixon’s impeachment for the Watergate break-in, which is really the story of his impeachment for attempting to cover-up the Watergate break-in, after reading Garrett M. Graff’s fantastic 2022 book, Watergate: A New History. Still, I found Naftali’s section on Nixon interesting. We obviously tend to overlook that impeachment was ramping up against Nixon because he ultimately resigned office, the first president to do so. But impeachment was ramping up and it’s likely had Nixon not resigned, he would have been the first president impeached and removed from office. There are two fascinating items about Watergate I want to highlight: 1.) The break-in occurred in June 1972 and being percolating therein. Nixon would be re-elected later that year in a landslide win against George McGovern. I find solace in that, to some extent, given our current situation. 2.) Most Americans were not paying attention to the Watergate scandal, despite dogged reporting, and even after 16 months of this scandal going on, nobody in Congress was seriously considering impeachment until the Saturday Night Massacre on October 20, 1973, where a number of resignations at the Department of Justice occurred after Nixon dismissed special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Again, it was the cover-up that doomed Nixon. What’s so darkly amusing to me is that impeaching Nixon for the Watergate cover-up made sense, but impeaching him for tax evasion and the bombing of Cambodia? That was seen as a bridge too far. Politics is weird. The takeaway Naftali had about Nixon’s impending impeachment was the bipartisan nature of it between Democrats and Republicans. Spoiler alert, but in Clinton’s, everything was largely divided along party lines, and today, during Trump’s second administration, no Republican would dare try to oust him. That said, during the prior Trump administration, we did see the first Republican Senator to vote to convict a president of his own party for impeachment with Mitt Romney of Donald Trump during his second impeachment in January 2021.
Clinton is such a sleazeball. Every time I hear or read anything about him, I walk away thinking that. And it’s not just the sleaziness — the affairs with women going back to the 1970s, including alleged sexual misconduct, and of course, the power dynamic of the Monica Lewinsky affair, making it dubious whether it was truly consensual — but also the hubris to do it while president and then become indignant when anyone attempts to call it out. Again, you see the blueprint Clinton and the Democrats of the 1990s created used during the Trump years. Disheartening, to say the least. There is even a throughline going into the past with Clinton: He was galvanized by Nixon’s villainy to run for Congress, which ultimately failed, and notably, Clinton was already cheating on Hillary at that point.
The impeachment of Clinton started with the Paula Jones civil lawsuit, where she alleged Clinton sexually harassed her in 1991 while he was Arkansas Governor and she a state employee. During discovery for that suit, Clinton perjured himself regarding his sexual relationship with Lewinsky. In September 1998, the Starr Report came out by Ken Starr, the independent counsel for the House Judiciary Committee. The report sought to demonstrate a pattern from Clinton of these affairs and attempted cover-ups. Clinton lied for seven months not only to the public, but his own family, prior to August 1998, where he admitted to it in a grand jury testimony. Clinton’s poll numbers went up anyway. After the scandal broke, support for Clinton was at 71 percent (which is difficult to imagine a president receiving that today!). Public support did dip to 55 percent after the Starr Report, but went back up to 71 percent after the House approved two articles of impeachment against Clinton. Essentially, the public thinking was, yes, he’s a sleazebag, but what does that have to do with his job as president? We hear this defense now. Clinton was impeached by the House, but like Johnson, acquitted by the Senate. Would I have voted to impeach Clinton and remove him from office? Yes. I say that not even with the hindsight of the parallels to his story and that of Trump’s. If we truly believe a president is not above the law, then we need to act like it.
[I mentioned before the hypocrisy of the GOP, who were attempting to persecute the case against Clinton. New Gingrich, the House Speaker at the time, engaged in an extra-marital affair with a House of Representatives staffer in 1993 (and while his wife had cancer). Bob Livingston was going to succeed Gingrich as House Speaker until he declined after revelations of his own extramarital affair. Tom Delay, the House Majority Whip, was another one. Another Republican, Dan Burton, fathered a child during his adultery. Dennis Hastert, who became House Speaker after Gingrich, was later convicted for hush money payments to teenage boys he’d sexually abused.]
It goes without saying where I stand on the Trump presidency, especially given how I stand on impeachment. Any number of items at this point ought to be impeachable offenses during Trump’s second administration (enriching himself through cryptocurrency, mobilizing the military in L.A., the kidnapping and deportation of U.S. residents to foreign prisons, his actions on tariffs, defying court orders, his campaign of retribution at the Justice Department, dismantling federal agencies, and on and on and on it goes, and yes, I would impeach him for this, too). But in a sane world, a.) he never would have become president in 2016 in the first place; and b.) accepting the former, he would have been barred from ever holding elected office again after Jan. 6 and his second impeachment, and then faced his myriad criminal charges. Alas.
If you want a better understanding of American history, impeachment, find solace in other turbulent times in America that we eventually moved past, and want to become an ardent supportive of the impeachment power like me, then Impeachment: An American History is a nice primer on the cases of Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton, and what lessons to draw in our present day.
October 16, 2019
Lots of painful and rather meaningless details, with virtually no cause and effect or big picture analysis. The introduction and first chapter are solid, but beyond that, this book wasn't good.
November 26, 2019
* Only two times in country's history has the House passed articles of impeachment
* Respect for journalists somewhat high during Nixon's impeachment but "fourth estate" lost ground as Nixon continued to talk about a "witch hunt." Trust in journalism has never reached pre-Watergate levels and trust in public officials has similarly crashed.
* "Lies told often enough form a reality of their own."
* Bill Clinton helped get Republicans elected in 2000 and 2016... W. would "restore dignity" to office and Trump talked about Hillary's husband doing as bad as he did with women.
* John Tyler beat impeachment in the House so articles never passed on to Senate
* Public support for impeachment for Nixon didn't eclipse Trump until weeks before Nixon stepped down
* Lowest public support for a president after first year of service ever despite low unemployment and healthy economy
* "The Republican partisan mind refused to absorb the incriminating nature of the tapes" regarding Dean telling Nixon Watergate was a cancer on the presidency
* Those who study history also repeat it but are less surprised
Ch. 1
* Country in crisis decade after Revolution. Reps from states came together in 1787 to try and unite country more strongly... originally colony reps wanted loose binding. Considerations of monarchy were made. Only 6 men signed Declaration of Independence 1776 and the Constitution 1787 (5% of participants). These were two separate groups... even those in both had been changed in the 11 years between the two events. The "Founding Fathers" were not nearly as uniform as thought.
* Constitution debates were private
* Washington hadn't put his needs above the nation's which is why founders wanted him as first president. Asking what Washington would not have done is a way of assessing if a president could warrant impeachment.
* Worry of President being like a monarch but over time Legislature proves also dangerous as it wants to do what people want and not what they need
* Washington did not want to be President but honor drew him in. He beat the world's best military and then relinquished the power he amassed to do so. So rare as typically power corrupts.
* Arguments made against impeachment and instead shorter terms leaving decision up to the voters but electors and elections can be corrupted making possibility the President would never be removed
* A good "magistrate" wouldn't be afraid of impeachment but a bad one would.
* Someone who put money above country could not be trusted.
* High crimes done against crown in monarchy and against the public in a democracy... against the "entire American people."
*Malfeasance putting one's interests above the people's is what the founders were concerned about and what they would consider an impeachable offense.
* Jaywalking not impeachable but impeding an investigation into it is. Not all crimes are impeachable and not all impeachable offenses are necessarily illegal.
* Pardon power does not extend to impeachment.
* Washington had his slaves' teeth put into his jaw.
* Founders trusted Washington to be first president for his integrity, not because they thought he was perfect.
* Virtue wards off tyranny. Absence of virtue evidenced by a President's concern for his own welfare above the public's is the best sign we have that the signers would have wanted him impeached.
Andrew Johnson
* In death, the Confederacy entered immortality
* White men alone should govern the South - Andrew Johnson, 1865
* Johnson opposed the 14th Amendment guaranteeing citizenship to blacks
* Johnson place on ticket because Lincoln thought he needed him to get re-elected. Johnson was too drunk to partake in inaugural of 1865.
* Lincoln just before being killed was gearing up for how difficult Reconstruction would be and now a Southern democrat who only recently joined Republican ticket was running Reconstruction.
* "Who has suffered more for the Union than I have?" Johnson on a speech on Lincoln's birthday of all days. One hour speech, referred to himself 200 times. Poor little victim.
* Johnson impeached before specifics laid out
* 7 Republicans vote Johnson not guilty partly out of fear impeachment make government impossibly partisan with each party voting out opposite party presidents
* House could be emotional and Senate rational setting a trend
Richard Nixon
* Nixon tried to use IRS as weapon against opponents and promised pardons to the loyal
* Door thought it better to show patterns than one bad day and one bad conversation to convince the public
* Arguments over whether impeachment offenses had to be criminal as a starter
* WH strategy with deceptive cooperation
* Door's non-partisan approach to presenting thousands of pages of information with no interpretation threatened the success of the impeachment
* Thornton said to be effective participant in impeachment, he had to 'forget he was an elected-official." It was too important to be partisan.
* Butler - We will hurt the part by putting our feet in the ground or condoning Nixon's actions.
* Impeachment needed Republican "mugwumps" and Southern Democrats ultimately disappointing many of their constituents
* Death threats were made on pro-impeachment politicians
* Preconditions to successful impeachment: baseline of accepted facts, trust among house Judiciary Committee, disciplined commitment by the Committee Chair and inquiry staff to bi-partisanship
Bill Clinton
* First impeachment with 24 hour cable news
* Impeached over lies and not infidelity
* Role reversals with Democrats self-styled feminists questioning women's stories and Republicans championing them
* Gingrich steps down rather than be voted out as Speaker after election losses perceived because of disapproval of Republican handling of impeachment
* Nonetheless, Republicans carry on with impeachment led by Tom Delay
* Bombing of Iraq in early 1999 charged as Wag the Dog by R's and necessary response to Saddam Hussein by D's
* Congress asserts its power via impeachment although with lots of partisanship
* Livingston, R Speaker who replaced Gingrich would relinquish his seat because news of an affair of his was coming out
* D argument was is this "the moment the actions of a President have so put at risk the government the Framers created that there was only one solution."
* Each impeachment rewrites the rules for the future.
* Democrats were wrong to support Clinton looking at the situation through the lens of #MeToo
Conclusion
* Impeachment seems more likely these days and this can be seen how many have happened in the past 45 years vs previous span of years from the country's founding
* Trump warned a week before the election that Hillary's presidency would be endless investigations, hearings, and gridlock
* Voters seem ready to negate elections sooner now
* Framers feared the very things Trump is accused of such as betraying trust to foreign powers, perverting administration in oppression (Madison), bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust
(Morris). Any president corrupted by foreign influence should be impeached, period. They just fought a war to break free of foreign influence. No leader more important than those he led. President's personal gain cannot be put before the country's.
* Previous impeachments did not destroy the Constitution but that's no guarantee it won't happen with another impeachment
* Johnson reveals impeachments on Constitutional questions prompt real reflection among those rendering a verdict. Impeached for being a jerk essentially. He directly contradicted Congressional will. Party allegiance was less strong than personal convictions.
* Nixon reveals a guilty president can retain his office and could even possibly finish his terms before being convicted. When support crumbles for a President, it crumbles fast. Defenders realize they were lied to by the White House and lied because of it. Proof matters... documents, tapes, bank records etc. Evidence must be irrefutable... difficult these days. Updated to today's standards is when the President's constituents accept his guilt his support will collapse. Truth isn't truth... we've all become post-modernists within first 2 years of Trump's presidency.
* Did Clinton's crimes rise to impeachable offense and causing danger to the country? Least pressing constitutional crisis... solely about misdeeds outside of his Constitutional obligations. This makes it the trickiest impeachment for consensus to form around. Popular presidents may get impeached in the House but not in the Senate with it's higher standards (Ford said an impeachable offense is whatever the House of Reps says it is).
* "Only if a future impeachment case plays out like Johnson's in which Senators are called to consider their consciences as well as their constituents and at the same time like Nixon's with conclusive evidence strong enough to justify lawmakers breaking party discipline should a President truly fear impeachment." Such scenarios could involve a President under the sway of a foreign power, profited from his office, or who consciously overstepped Constitution's restraints on executive power. Don't have to be crimes and still counts if they happen before taking office. If president lied to gain office, he'd be impeachable and may be convicted. One need not act illegally in order to act treasonably. Moral outrage difficult without facts widely accepted as such.
* Those who study history are destined to repeat it though with less surprise.
* Those who study history need not be surprised at all even if frustration with centrality of impeachment extends into the foreseeable future. Framers would want impeachment this way... it needs to be such a high bar that it exceeds partisan fury. Requires malfeasance to be unquestioned.
* Confidence in next election happening and its results being trusted, winning the next is better than litigating the past.
* Respect for journalists somewhat high during Nixon's impeachment but "fourth estate" lost ground as Nixon continued to talk about a "witch hunt." Trust in journalism has never reached pre-Watergate levels and trust in public officials has similarly crashed.
* "Lies told often enough form a reality of their own."
* Bill Clinton helped get Republicans elected in 2000 and 2016... W. would "restore dignity" to office and Trump talked about Hillary's husband doing as bad as he did with women.
* John Tyler beat impeachment in the House so articles never passed on to Senate
* Public support for impeachment for Nixon didn't eclipse Trump until weeks before Nixon stepped down
* Lowest public support for a president after first year of service ever despite low unemployment and healthy economy
* "The Republican partisan mind refused to absorb the incriminating nature of the tapes" regarding Dean telling Nixon Watergate was a cancer on the presidency
* Those who study history also repeat it but are less surprised
Ch. 1
* Country in crisis decade after Revolution. Reps from states came together in 1787 to try and unite country more strongly... originally colony reps wanted loose binding. Considerations of monarchy were made. Only 6 men signed Declaration of Independence 1776 and the Constitution 1787 (5% of participants). These were two separate groups... even those in both had been changed in the 11 years between the two events. The "Founding Fathers" were not nearly as uniform as thought.
* Constitution debates were private
* Washington hadn't put his needs above the nation's which is why founders wanted him as first president. Asking what Washington would not have done is a way of assessing if a president could warrant impeachment.
* Worry of President being like a monarch but over time Legislature proves also dangerous as it wants to do what people want and not what they need
* Washington did not want to be President but honor drew him in. He beat the world's best military and then relinquished the power he amassed to do so. So rare as typically power corrupts.
* Arguments made against impeachment and instead shorter terms leaving decision up to the voters but electors and elections can be corrupted making possibility the President would never be removed
* A good "magistrate" wouldn't be afraid of impeachment but a bad one would.
* Someone who put money above country could not be trusted.
* High crimes done against crown in monarchy and against the public in a democracy... against the "entire American people."
*Malfeasance putting one's interests above the people's is what the founders were concerned about and what they would consider an impeachable offense.
* Jaywalking not impeachable but impeding an investigation into it is. Not all crimes are impeachable and not all impeachable offenses are necessarily illegal.
* Pardon power does not extend to impeachment.
* Washington had his slaves' teeth put into his jaw.
* Founders trusted Washington to be first president for his integrity, not because they thought he was perfect.
* Virtue wards off tyranny. Absence of virtue evidenced by a President's concern for his own welfare above the public's is the best sign we have that the signers would have wanted him impeached.
Andrew Johnson
* In death, the Confederacy entered immortality
* White men alone should govern the South - Andrew Johnson, 1865
* Johnson opposed the 14th Amendment guaranteeing citizenship to blacks
* Johnson place on ticket because Lincoln thought he needed him to get re-elected. Johnson was too drunk to partake in inaugural of 1865.
* Lincoln just before being killed was gearing up for how difficult Reconstruction would be and now a Southern democrat who only recently joined Republican ticket was running Reconstruction.
* "Who has suffered more for the Union than I have?" Johnson on a speech on Lincoln's birthday of all days. One hour speech, referred to himself 200 times. Poor little victim.
* Johnson impeached before specifics laid out
* 7 Republicans vote Johnson not guilty partly out of fear impeachment make government impossibly partisan with each party voting out opposite party presidents
* House could be emotional and Senate rational setting a trend
Richard Nixon
* Nixon tried to use IRS as weapon against opponents and promised pardons to the loyal
* Door thought it better to show patterns than one bad day and one bad conversation to convince the public
* Arguments over whether impeachment offenses had to be criminal as a starter
* WH strategy with deceptive cooperation
* Door's non-partisan approach to presenting thousands of pages of information with no interpretation threatened the success of the impeachment
* Thornton said to be effective participant in impeachment, he had to 'forget he was an elected-official." It was too important to be partisan.
* Butler - We will hurt the part by putting our feet in the ground or condoning Nixon's actions.
* Impeachment needed Republican "mugwumps" and Southern Democrats ultimately disappointing many of their constituents
* Death threats were made on pro-impeachment politicians
* Preconditions to successful impeachment: baseline of accepted facts, trust among house Judiciary Committee, disciplined commitment by the Committee Chair and inquiry staff to bi-partisanship
Bill Clinton
* First impeachment with 24 hour cable news
* Impeached over lies and not infidelity
* Role reversals with Democrats self-styled feminists questioning women's stories and Republicans championing them
* Gingrich steps down rather than be voted out as Speaker after election losses perceived because of disapproval of Republican handling of impeachment
* Nonetheless, Republicans carry on with impeachment led by Tom Delay
* Bombing of Iraq in early 1999 charged as Wag the Dog by R's and necessary response to Saddam Hussein by D's
* Congress asserts its power via impeachment although with lots of partisanship
* Livingston, R Speaker who replaced Gingrich would relinquish his seat because news of an affair of his was coming out
* D argument was is this "the moment the actions of a President have so put at risk the government the Framers created that there was only one solution."
* Each impeachment rewrites the rules for the future.
* Democrats were wrong to support Clinton looking at the situation through the lens of #MeToo
Conclusion
* Impeachment seems more likely these days and this can be seen how many have happened in the past 45 years vs previous span of years from the country's founding
* Trump warned a week before the election that Hillary's presidency would be endless investigations, hearings, and gridlock
* Voters seem ready to negate elections sooner now
* Framers feared the very things Trump is accused of such as betraying trust to foreign powers, perverting administration in oppression (Madison), bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust
(Morris). Any president corrupted by foreign influence should be impeached, period. They just fought a war to break free of foreign influence. No leader more important than those he led. President's personal gain cannot be put before the country's.
* Previous impeachments did not destroy the Constitution but that's no guarantee it won't happen with another impeachment
* Johnson reveals impeachments on Constitutional questions prompt real reflection among those rendering a verdict. Impeached for being a jerk essentially. He directly contradicted Congressional will. Party allegiance was less strong than personal convictions.
* Nixon reveals a guilty president can retain his office and could even possibly finish his terms before being convicted. When support crumbles for a President, it crumbles fast. Defenders realize they were lied to by the White House and lied because of it. Proof matters... documents, tapes, bank records etc. Evidence must be irrefutable... difficult these days. Updated to today's standards is when the President's constituents accept his guilt his support will collapse. Truth isn't truth... we've all become post-modernists within first 2 years of Trump's presidency.
* Did Clinton's crimes rise to impeachable offense and causing danger to the country? Least pressing constitutional crisis... solely about misdeeds outside of his Constitutional obligations. This makes it the trickiest impeachment for consensus to form around. Popular presidents may get impeached in the House but not in the Senate with it's higher standards (Ford said an impeachable offense is whatever the House of Reps says it is).
* "Only if a future impeachment case plays out like Johnson's in which Senators are called to consider their consciences as well as their constituents and at the same time like Nixon's with conclusive evidence strong enough to justify lawmakers breaking party discipline should a President truly fear impeachment." Such scenarios could involve a President under the sway of a foreign power, profited from his office, or who consciously overstepped Constitution's restraints on executive power. Don't have to be crimes and still counts if they happen before taking office. If president lied to gain office, he'd be impeachable and may be convicted. One need not act illegally in order to act treasonably. Moral outrage difficult without facts widely accepted as such.
* Those who study history are destined to repeat it though with less surprise.
* Those who study history need not be surprised at all even if frustration with centrality of impeachment extends into the foreseeable future. Framers would want impeachment this way... it needs to be such a high bar that it exceeds partisan fury. Requires malfeasance to be unquestioned.
* Confidence in next election happening and its results being trusted, winning the next is better than litigating the past.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 167 reviews