Disclaimer
Just a reminder that reviews are opinions, and this review is my opinion and mine only. It doesn’t represent anyone or anything else other than Eric Primm. Since this review deals with a very politically charged topic, I felt this disclaimer was important. Also, before commenting, please, review and abide by this blog’s commenting policy.
President Donald Trump has forever tarnished the office of the presidency. He’s started twitter wars, trade wars, and seemingly wanted to start a nuclear war with North Korea. His campaign is under investigation, one that has produced a number of indictments and a few guilty pleas. Currently, the president’s campaign chairperson is going through the first of two trials. Also, the president may be under investigation for obstruction of justice. He thinks nothing of sending $12 billion to the farmers his trade war is hurting. He is considering bypassing Congress to further cut taxes in a way that will disproportionately benefit the very, very rich and wants to shut down the government to get his wall. To me, he is a bad president, and I would like him gone. Some on the political Left have their hopes on getting rid of him through the process of impeachment. But being bad at the job isn’t necessarily grounds for impeachment. No, impeachment requires the president be convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Do any of President Trump’s actions meet the requirements for impeachable offenses? In The Constitution Demands It, Ron Fein, John Bonifaz, and Ben Clements lay out 8 reasons why Congress should start investigating Donald Trump for impeachment today. While this text will be seen as politically biased, The Constitution Demands It is rooted in law, history, and the constitution of the United States. This book and its argument should be treated with skepticism because impeachment should not be a political tool. Impeachment proceedings should be backed by solid evidence. The Constitution Demands It collects and analyzes a lot of the President’s actions to prove that impeachment investigations are necessary.
TL;DR
The Constitution Demands It by Ron Fein, John Bonifaz, and Ben Clements is an excellent argument for the impeachment of Donald Trump. While not all of the reasons are rock solid, there exists enough evidence as listed in this book that Congress should begin investigating whether to impeach Trump. Recommended for anyone interested in the presidency of Donald Trump.
From the Publisher
The reasons Donald Trump must be impeached—as per the Founding Fathers—and what you can do to help make that happen
Three veteran constitutional attorneys say there’s no way around it: The Constitution demands that Donald Trump must be impeached.
And in clear language using compelling logic rooted firmly in the Constitution, they detail why the time to start is now — not in the indefinite future after criminal investigations have ended. In fact, much of Trump’s impeachable conduct lies outside the scope of ongoing federal criminal investigations.
Citing charges such as accepting illegal payments from foreign governments, using government agencies to persecute political enemies, obstructing justice, abusing the pardon power, and undermining freedom of the press, they provide the factual and legal basis for eight articles of impeachment.
In short, they argue, abuses threatening our constitutional democracy should be dealt with by the remedy that the Constitution provides for a lawless, authoritarian president: impeachment. And an informed citizenry should be part of the process.
After all, they say, impeachment is not a constitutional crisis — impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis.
Writing
The Constitution Demands It is a long form, persuasive essay. Its thesis is displayed in big letters right on the cover: The Case for the Impeachment of Donald Trump. The book, while containing many notes and references, makes a self-contained argument; the appendix can be used by the skeptic to corroborate the authors’ claims. They use the introduction to discuss what impeachment is and how it differs from criminal proceedings while giving the reader a bit of constitutional history. Examples from the Nixon and Clinton presidencies are used throughout to show how Congress has acted in the past and to support why those actions are called for today.
Each reason for impeachment is given its own chapter, which keeps the text clear and focused. Each chapter has an excellent internal organization that gives a consistent feel across the entire text. There’s a quick introduction paragraph, and then the authors lay out the evidence. Immediately, one notices the abundance of supporting evidence that the authors have researched. (Not that the president made it very difficult. Everything he does is out in the open.) Then, they provide a bit of analysis with respect to legal and historical precedent. In these sections, the history of the impeachment process as developed and used is a fascinating look at a part of the US not often covered. Finally, each chapter ends with a section prefaced in all caps: BOTTOM LINE. For all those who just don’t have the time, these sections distill the whole chapter down into a paragraph. Essentially, they’re the Too Long; Didn’t Read (TL;DR) summaries. Because each chapter is a standalone and because of the similar organization, the book doesn’t necessarily have to be read front to back. If one argument interests you more than others, you can jump straight to that chapter after reading the introduction.
My Reaction
As someone biased against this president, I had to approach The Constitution Demands It with extreme skepticism. I set a high bar for which evidence met the requirements of impeachment1. Did it succeed in convincing me that Congress should start investigating the president? To be clear any of the eight reasons is an impeachable offense by itself. Keeping that in mind, I can say that yes, it succeeded, but some arguments failed to convince me on their own. The authors crafted the book so that each of the eight sections was an argument for an impeachable offense. Therefore, if one chapter made an argument for impeachment, then the book succeeds. Each chapter states a reason for impeachment and then provides copious evidence. While all chapters show evidence of corruption and incompetence, not all chapters are definitive enough to clear the bar of impeachable offense.
The strongest chapter of the book is the first regarding foreign and domestic emoluments. Before the Trump presidency, I didn’t know the word emoluments existed. In this chapter, the authors discuss exactly what an emolument is, and they place it in context with the Founders’ expectations when writing the constitution. This analysis made me in awe of the fore-sightedness of the Founding Fathers. When writing the constitution, they studied history not only for the legal aspect but the human behavioral aspect as well. They couldn’t predict everything that would happen in the future, but they knew that humans were humans were humans. By understanding human behavior – and in this case the worst of human behavior – they were able to set out laws that lasted centuries after they became history themselves. Their fear of corruption led directly to the emoluments clause, and their fear of corruption is why modern presidents place their assets in blind trusts. Except Trump didn’t do this. He relinquished control, but he still benefits and is using the taxpayer to pad his bottom line. This is in direct violation of the constitution, and the authors provide not only why it’s a violation but also instance after instance after instance of Trump violating these clauses.
Both the pardon power and the reckless endangerment chapters are the weakest arguments for impeachment in the book. I don’t think they clear the bar for an impeachable offense. The evidence the authors provide describe a bad politician, an inept strategist, an executive who disdains the norms of the office, and a wannabe tough man, but to me none of those meet the requirements of the high crimes and misdemeanor qualification. Sure, pardoning Joe Arpaio could be a signal to the members of his campaign under investigation – and, boy, are there a lot of campaign workers that interest law enforcement – but it could also just be Trump crushing on another racist, another authoritarian jackass. We’ve, sadly, seen him attempt to be besties with Putin and praise Erdogan and Duterte; so, we know he admires despicable people. And, with Trump violating other norms of the office, we can’t say that just because he didn’t wait until the end of his term to make controversial pardons that it indicates something sinister. There is too much doubt in these arguments as compared with the stronger chapters of this book. And that’s the problem with an incompetent president. Is he just bad at his job, or is there something sinister going on? Or is it both?
The Special Counsel
Robert Mueller is an American hero. He was before this investigation, and he will be afterwards regardless of outcome. But he is not the savior that the Left wants him to be. The man is a professional, and he will conduct his job accordingly wherever that does or does not lead him. When his investigation is complete, I believe that all sides will be shocked and disappointed with the outcome. Trump’s supporters will think that he overstepped his boundaries and was a paid shill of the Democrats2. The Left and those on the Right who oppose Trump will say that Mueller failed and protected Trump. The authors of The Constitution Demands It correctly frame their arguments so that the results of the special counsel’s investigation are irrelevant. That is the beauty of this book. Their hard work lays out the case for impeachment based on publically available information. Not a single impeachable offense relies on the special investigation. The book stands on the evidence contained in it and publicly verifiable.
Who Is This Book For?
In 2018’s extremely polarized environment, The Constitution Demands It will be dismissed by half the voting population without reading. Too many people – no matter their politics – trust their own judgment and biases more than they should. We live in a time where everyone, including me, suffers from political Dunning-Kruger effects. This book will be dismissed simply because it is biased, and in this time where people believe in the myth of human objectivity, bias is equated with lying, falsehoods, and errors. Well, that’s simply not true. Every human is biased, and that’s okay. This has been true since the first Homo sapiens preferred walking upright to slouching. Bias doesn’t mean the argument is unsound; nor does it mean the argument is persuasive. An argument’s thesis must be supported by evidence, and The Constitution Demands It is filled with supporting evidence. The way to refute these arguments is to refute the evidence or to show that the authors drew the wrong conclusion from the evidence. Dismissing the argument without refuting it shows an intellectual weakness and inherent fear that it could be correct. And if the argument is correct, what does that say about Trump voters?
It says nothing. Minds can and should change when presented with new evidence and fact based arguments. But today’s culture has taken a captain-going-down-with-the-ship approach to politics. If you voted for Trump, then you have to support him whatever he does. If you voted against Trump, then you have to oppose him whatever he does. In other words, the country is in a state of madness, and it didn’t begin with Trump. The political divide has widened at a continually faster pace throughout my entire life on this planet. At one time, compromise was possible, but it seems like that day is long gone. Trump isn’t the cause of our current political cancer, he’s a symptom. And with the way that he treats this country, dividing it, calling American citizens enemies of the people, believing dictators while distrusting his own intelligence community, I don’t see the US as healing any time soon. Individually, humans can find connection. I have many conservative friends with which I can discuss, debate, and laugh about politics. Common ground can be found. But the individual connection is always lost as the group expands. As political groups, we’re all idiots. Unfortunately, of the two big political groups in the US, one is becoming more and more a home of abuse enablers, white supremacists, and self-proclaimed Nazis. And that means there is no moral equivalence between the two political parties of the US.
The Constitution Demands It is a book that Americans should be reading and discussing based on its intellectual merits.
But Her Emails
For those conservatives who do read this book, I applaud you. No, this isn’t sarcasm. I will always, always commend politically opposed people who cross the ideological divide in an attempt to understand the other side. This is the true nature of debate. Speaking to those in your bubble is not debate, it’s preaching to your crowd. And if you, the intellectually honest and intellectually curious conservative, read this book, you have my admiration. To keep that admiration, argue the merits of the book. Please, do not bring up Hillary or Obama. That is not debate; it is deflection. When I criticize Trump, the moment someone says, “…but Hillary…” I don’t take it as honest debate. I take it as an inability to defend Trump’s actions. The same will be doubly – no – triply true here. Tell me why Trump using taxpayer money to stay at his hotel isn’t a violation of the domestic emoluments clause. Tell me why the evidence in this book does not support its conclusions. If Obama, Hillary, Bill, the Bushes, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Ford, Kennedy, etc. owned a hotel and used taxpayer money to pad that hotel’s bottom line, then you’d have an argument because it would be an apples-to-apples comparison. For example, comparing the number of days that Trump has been golfing to the number of days Obama golfed while in office is a direct comparison. One that Trump himself brought on by his criticisms of Obama, and how much President Trump’s golfing is taxpayer money going to the coffers of his courses?
But ultimately someone will say “What about Hillary and her foundation?” because it’s easy to say this, and most people are lazy. This question is a classic example of the “Burden of Proof” logical fallacy. The person who asks the question must provide the proof for the assertion that Hillary and her foundation did anything wrong. Normally, we call this due process, but for conservatives, all one has to do is mention Hillary and due process flies out the window. (See also: chants of “lock her up”) The arguments in this book cannot be used as equivalent reasons to impeach Hillary BECAUSE SHE ISN’T FUCKING PRESIDENT. But we all know that when it comes to Hillary, conservatives are operating from emotion, not reason and intellect. So, if you, the intellectually honest and curious conservative, read this book, you will have a blueprint to build your own case against Hillary – should she somehow become president. Just as the authors of this book took on the burden of proof to support their argument, you will have to take on the burden of proof with your own argument. Good luck with that because after two decades of investigation, all conservatives have on Hillary is a silly, little chant and giant, irrational, unhealthy obsession.
Conclusion
Ron Fein, John Bonifaz, and Ben Clements have presented enough evidence that Congress should begin an investigation into impeaching the president of the United States. The Constitution Demands It is a book for anyone interested in the U.S. constitution’s logic for impeachment. It uses publically available evidence to build a case that doesn’t rely on the special investigation. This is an important if controversial book that in better times, both the Left and the Right would be able to debate the merits of. As it is, it’s a book that shouldn’t be dismissed. Its arguments are strong and compelling. To me, most are convincing enough that I want to read a book full of counter-arguments just to see if someone can defend Trump’s actions3. The Constitution Demands It should be the opening to an intellectually fascinating, fact-based debate. Because it is so well-researched, so well-argued, it deserves the voting public’s attention. While the politicians that control Congress are too subservient to this president to ever investigate whether this book is correct, if they were intellectually and morally honest, it would be at the top of their to be read pile. The Constitution Demands It at its worst presents a sleazy president, and, at its best, The Constitution Demands It makes its case that Congress should begin to investigate whether or not to impeach Donald Trump.
Also, fuck Trump.
8 out of 10!
1. I understand that Trump supporters will think that I set the bar too low, and those conspiracy minded Leftists will think I set the bar too high. But what I tried to do is require the reasons to apply to any president or politician, even the ones I support. If the argument didn’t make sense against Lincoln or Reagan or Obama, then the argument didn’t make sense. Click here to return.
2. He is also a Republican and has donated to the Republican Party. If he were a man affected by political bias, one would think his bias would lead to protecting the man at the head of the GOP. Click here to return.
3. Yes, I’m sure someone can defend it. For enough money, lawyers can and will defend anything. I’d love to see their counter-arguments to this book. I have a feeling it would a lot of smoke and mirrors, like Giuliani’s “Collusion is not a crime” verbal three card Monte. Click here to return.