Early in October, Donald Trump tweeted, “As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!” (Mellen) He is referring to the actions by the House of Representatives that opened up a line of inquiry about impeachment over Trump’s phone call to Ukraine. In the phone call, Trump asked for help from Ukraine in investigating the son of his top Democratic rival for the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden. Since Trump had ordered several hundred million dollars in military aid be held from Ukraine, the phone call looked as if he was expecting quid pro quo (one thing in exchange for another). In this case, the exchange was the military aid for a promise to investigate Hunter Biden, which is equivalent to bribery or coercion.
Trump’s choice of rhetorical terms to describe the impeachment was used incorrectly. Of course, Trump is known for misusing words, but this use of the word “coup” was not something he did inadvertently or because he does not have a very big vocabulary. This misuse of the word “coup” was done to fire up his base against impeachment. Ruby Mellen, who wrote the Washington Post article quoted above, says, “A coup, commonly defined as explicit action involving the military with the intent to overthrow the government, was not what was happening when Democrats launched an investigation into whether Trump was fit for office after allegedly asking a foreign leader for assistance in investigating the son of a political opponent” (Mellen). Trump wanted his supporters to think that what the House of Representatives is doing was not the legitimate use of the power granted them by the Constitution. He wants to stir up a counter-reaction to the impeachment; he wanted to create a coup of his own.
In 1998, when the Republicans tried unsuccessfully to impeach Bill Clinton, Democrats used the word “coup” also, but the threat of a national rift outside political arenas was not as great then. Now, there are many right-wing groups with lots of gun and ammunition stored for the very purpose of “taking back their country” when they do not like the turn of political events. Trump regularly appeals to them with his rhetoric. To them, the idea of impeaching Trump would be the equivalent of a military takeover, especially if they also do not have a good grasp on vocabulary. Of course, it would be they who used weapons, so it would be they attempting to initiate a coup.
The comparison of impeachment to a coup is absurd. Three other presidents have faced impeachment. There was no military takeover even hinted at in any of them. The impeachment process is detailed in the Constitution even if the reasons for impeachment are somewhat vague. Julian Zelizer of CNN cites Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution which says, “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Zelizer). The “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is the portion that is vague, and the part on which the Republicans relied in 1998. Perhaps it is the part that Democrats in 2019 will rely on also; however, there is a good case for other portions of the section such as bribery that may fit Trump’s alleged crimes better.
To be specific, Clinton’s attempted impeachment was based on perjury and obstruction of justice over an extramarital affair. Trump’s is based on attempted collusion with another country to sway election result, which may be defined as treason. An independent special council investigation headed by Bob Mueller looked into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Mueller did not find enough evidence to say that there was definite collusion. However, as Sharon LaFraniere of the New York Times reports, Mueller declined to clear President Trump of obstruction of justice. He said, “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so . . . . The Constitution provides for another remedy to formally accuse a president of wrongdoing — a clear reference to the ability of Congress to conduct impeachment proceedings” (Franiere). Democrats in 1998 may have accused Republicans of attempting a coup, yet no one really thought that guns would be drawn. Today, we are not so certain that there would not be violence should the impeachment be successful.
One reason that comparing impeachment to
Order this paper