I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to attend a Salon series. No, not a séance (Random House, the publisher, called the event a ‘Big idea’s Night’.) This  (A Conversation with the Authors of, “IMPEACHMENT: An American History”) was an “intimate conversation with writers”- in particular, two of the four authors of Impeachment: An American History. The authors were Jon Meacham, Jeffrey Engel, Peter Baker, and Timothy Naftali. Except only the latter two were present for the discussion.

Given the incessant discussion about impeachment in the news (and in coffee houses), I thought the session would be oversubscribed.  But, only about 60 folks showed up to what turned out to be a rational discussion.

Peter Baker is a reporter for the New York Times and Tim Naftali is a NYU professor. (Jon Meacham is a presidential historian and professor at Vanderbilt; Jeffrey Engel is the founding director of presidential history at Southern Methodist.)

To be honest, a lot of what was discussed was stuff I already knew.   After all, I lived through the almost impeachment of Tricky Dick (Richard Nixon), as well as the impeachment of Bill Clinton. (At the time of both, I spent a fair amount of time studying the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. Just to get some context.)

The authors led off with a basic fact that most folks don’t recognize about impeachment. It is a political- not a legal- process. Even if the Senate approves the impeachment charges, the President is not removed from office.

It was a political charge against Andrew Johnson that led to his impeachment. Congress was very unhappy with the decisions being undertaken by the President. He was an ardent segregationist at the time the nation was trying to reconcile itself after the Civil War.

Which sets the stage for Tricky Dick. He might have survived his criminal acts and his political chicanery but for the Saturday Night Massacre. It was those series of acts that convinced America- who, like the current split for TheDonald- were composed of a significant minority that approved of Tricky Dick. As opposed to the Johnson impeachment that was political, soft and squishy; the issues were far more clear-cut with Nixon.

And, once Tricky Dick released his illegal White House tapes, it was absolutely clear that a felony occurred. (Both the special prosecutor and Judge Sirica ruled there was a felony.)

But, given that impeachment is a political process, it actually serves as a safety valve for America. The president really has to impeach himself. [The authors consider the process flawed, because if the president continues to obstruct justice, there is no way to prove any facts.]

Moreover, Tricky Dick edited the tapes himself. To make himself look better to America, he removed all the curse words that he thought would besmirch him. (Not just the F-bomb, but damn, etc.) But, the citizenry simply assumed each “expletive deleted” was the F-bomb, which made the case against Nixon far worse. (The US citizenry already reached the conclusion that Nixon was an amoral anti-Semite. But as American realized that his big lie- that the CIA, under his direction, never attempted to thwart the FBI examination into Watergate- existed, Nixon was toast.)

The impeachment of Clinton was far more partisan. Sure he lied under oath (and was guilty of a crime that did not then obtain for the Legislative and Executive Branches- sexual harassment), but that probably did not constitute  “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

Even the impeachment processes for Nixon and Clinton were different. Peter Rodino (the chairperson for Nixon’s impeachment process) throttled the system. To convince the GOP to join in the impeachment, there were no separate GOP and Democratic staffs; Rodino hired a Republican attorney (John Doerr) and continually communicated with the Republicans to gauge their response to the issues.

Jaworski prepared a criminal indictment for Nixon. That was probably the wrong way to go (even though- despite the famous declaration by Tricky Dick that “I am not a crook”- he was); because, as we mentioned above, impeachment is a political process. The question really was- did Nixon injure the political fabric of the United States- and the conclusion was that he did.

(Jaworski prepared the criminal indictment because of the felony findings; it also led to the rules that special, independent prosecutors must routinely transmit their progress to Congress. But, there no longer is a special prosecutor law. Mueller lacks the authority to submit his report to Congress. If the Attorney General rules that there is no report, there’s no report. Sure, the House could attempt to subpoena it- but that will be a real ‘pissing’ contest.)

The real question is whether a president can be indicted while in office. That would take a finding of treason, bribery, or malfeasance. Way back when we writing the Constitution, those issues were rejected as reasons for impeachment. It was George Mason who came up with ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ concept.

Which is why (according to the authors) the Starr Report, governing the Clinton impeachment, was wrong. It simply provided 400 pages of explicit sex discussions. (It was indexed, too!) The document was so precise in its details and its pornography, Congress elected to have the citizenry see it directly- they released the report sight unseen, so no one in Congress could be blamed for it.

(It was published verbatim in the Washington Post, and when it was read by Candy Crowley on CNN, she couldn’t keep from blushing. That was why the Starr idea backfired. Clinton knew that as long as the impeachment was only about sex, he would win. And, had no one found that blue dress, the entire case would have been like the Kavanaugh/Ford exchange- he said, she said.)

(By the way, Tom Delay was the hold-out for a vote on impeachment. Most of Congress wanted to censure Clinton- but Delay’s insistence forced the acquittal of Clinton.)

OK. Once we got to question and answers, you know what came up. And, here are the facts that were explained.

Money laundering with a foreign power is treason. But, if that transpired before one became President- is that a high crime and misdemeanor? Who knows.

What about hush money? Is that an impeachable offense? It IS a campaign finance violation, but probably not. After all, John Edwards was not convicted.

But, the least hopeful statement of the evening- if this presidency ends well, the norms of behavior will forever be changed.

Today we say goodbye to the Festival of Lights.  We lit the eighth (and last) candle last night.  Chag Sameach!