Hessie L. Harris – May 24, 2017 

The latest attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 Presidential Election and in turn overthrow the US government is now at the fore. 


The claim is that President Trump has, as did Richard Nixon, committed an impeachable offense and therefore pressure is being applied to force his resignation.  However, to borrow a southern idiom: that dog just won’t hunt.


Richard Nixon resigned because there was incontrovertible evidence that he had committed a crime.  In contrast, the allegations against Mr. Trump are based on statements made by former FBI Director James Comey.  The supposed smoking gun evidence are memorandums to file that Comey claimed he wrote right after conversations with President Trump.  Without substantive corroboration, as to content, they are nothing more than self-serving written statements, not hard evidence. 


In light of his botched investigation and subsequent usurpation of decisional authority regarding the high jinx of Hillary Clinton, that Mr. Comey did not disclose such allegedly damning information until after he was terminated raises even more serious doubts about his honesty, integrity and credibility.   That failure was not only dishonest but illegal, as he was duty bound to report such violations of law if they had occurred.


It is alleged that Mr. Trump’s very act of terminating Mr. Comey is indicative of guilt and merits impeachment.  Again, non-existent parallels have been drawn to Watergate.   In the infamous Saturday Night Massacre, Attorney General Eliot Richardson resigned in protest of Nixon’s order to fire Archibald Cox, the esteemed Special Prosecutor who sought access to White House tapes.  His appointment was under the jurisdiction of Mr. Richardson.   Subsequently, Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus also resigned in protest.   Refusal to obey the direct order of a superior is grounds for termination.  Had they not resigned, they would have been officially fired.  Solicitor General Robert Bork, appointed acting Attorney General terminated Cox.     Nixon’s actions were severely criticized and there were calls for his impeachment for “clear abuse of presidential discretion” by public officials and a plurality of American citizens.   Also, a federal judge ruled the firing was illegal.   However, there was no article of impeachment passed until the next year when his crime of obstruction of justice was laid bare.  President Trump’s action in firing Comey is a far cry from those of Mr. Nixon and the surrounding circumstances in that case.


In the Watergate case, another special prosecutor was appointed.  Another FBI director will be appointed.  Had the leftist and media feeding frenzy not been succumbed to, the new director could have continued the investigation, of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Campaign, which supposedly has been going on since the election without result.  Now a Special Counsel has been appointed to continue down that road.


Comey alleged that the President had asked him for loyalty.  Given the leaks coming out of the White House, a request for such assurance was not unreasonable.  However, a request for loyalty is not a request to lie or commit an illegal act.   Had he felt to be the case, Comey could have brought the concern to the Attorney General. He did not.


At this point there is simply nothing there.  Richard Nixon was subject to impeachment for the clear commission of a crime.  With President Trump, all the nay-sayers can summon is an “if-then” proposition.    They claim that if the highly questionable allegations are to true, then the President should be impeached.    The hope of course is that he will resign foreclosing the necessity of having to provide proof.   President Trump must not succumb to this scheme.    If the Ant-Trumpers push for impeachment, let it come.    The case will be laid out before the American people and found to be lacking.