Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A president under siege.
A special prosecutor investigating whether crimes were committed during the election.
The top investigator fired, a new one relentlessly digging closer and closer to the Oval Office.
And now a Deep Throat, someone with inside access and knowledge warning of amoral dysfunction.
I’ve been through this before.
In the 1970s, I was at the University of Illinois, ostensibly majoring in journalism but for much of my time absorbed by Watergate. Breakfast was spent poring through three newspapers; dinner was eaten in front of the TV, watching the evening news. If there had been 24-hour cable TV news and social media, I probably wouldn’t have graduated unless the school had a degree in constitutional crises.
Watching the current spectacle unfold in Washington, I am reminded of those days, when the outcome was far from certain. I remember the elation of a unanimous Supreme Court decision ordering President Nixon to turn over the tapes that would lead to his resignation; I remember the fear he’d refuse.
Reading excerpts of Bob Woodward’s new book on President Trump, “Fear,” I dug out my copy of his book on Nixon, “The Final Days,” so worn the cover has separated from the pages. The comparisons were undeniable, right down to Nixon’s affinity for the Russian leader and a rattled staff trying to keep policies on track.
Now, The New York Times has published an anonymous op-ed from someone its editors call a senior Trump administration official. He or she claimed to be part of a resistance within the administration that is “thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses.”
Shades of Chief of Staff Alexander Haig, who reportedly ran a shadow presidency while Nixon was consumed by Watergate.
The self-appointed “Horatio at the Gate” in Trump’s administration claims some cabinet members discussed invoking the 25th Amendment, which allows for an unfit president to be removed without impeachment, but the notion was rejected as precipitating a constitutional crisis.
I appreciate the need for decent, competent people to stay in the administration. But shadow governments and presidential will thwarted is a constitutional crisis. No matter what you think of Trump, he is the president and the Constitution has provided remedies to remove the unfit from office. Under Nixon, Congress held hearings and the House was set to vote for impeachment—with Senate conviction assured—when he resigned.
That isn’t happening now.
The Republicans who control Congress have abdicated all responsibility, with only a few ever mumbling any concern about Trump’s often-unhinged behavior.
Robert Mueller is proceeding with his investigation. But does anyone have confidence that Trump would obey a Supreme Court decision that went against him if, as seems likely, a case involving whether a president can be subpoenaed or indicted reaches the highest court? Does anyone think Trump would turn over documents or tapes that might incriminate him? Does anyone think Trump would emulate Nixon in not pardoning either himself or his cohorts?
In “The Final Days,” Woodward recalled Len Garment, special counsel to Nixon, telling Haig pardons were unthinkable.
“Pardons would be outside the system. It would be saying the hell with the system, with justice.”
That was 1974. Forty-four years later, I can contemplate far more devastating things, including a president who defies the Supreme Court and a rudderless nation with anonymous unelected officials making decisions.
The 25th Amendment is an extreme remedy, but if things are so bad that some cabinet members are discussing it, it is time for them to go public. At a minimum, Congress should be doing its job of oversight.
No, this isn’t Watergate.
This is worse.•
Click here for more Forefront columns.
__________
Schneider covered Indiana government and politics for The Indianapolis Star for more than 20 years. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.