Skip to content
News and updates

News and updates

A Primer on Impeachment

Posted on

In late September, Speaker of the House, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), announced a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. Impeachment is when a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Similar to an indictment, it is the first step in the process of removing a government official from office because they have committed particularly offensive crimes, such as treason or bribery.

President Trump is accused of trying to solicit personal favors by threatening to withhold foreign aid to Ukraine. This was brought to attention through a whistleblower complaint from an Intelligence Community employee.

Only two previous Presidents have ever been impeached. President Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868, but was acquitted in the Senate. President Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, and was also acquitted in the Senate. Articles of impeachment were approved against President Richard Nixon in 1974 following the Watergate Scandal, although he resigned before the full House could vote to impeach him. No prior President has ever been removed from office as a direct result of impeachment.

The last government official to be impeached, found guilty, and removed from office was Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. Formerly a Judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Porteous was found guilty of perjury by the Senate in 2010 and was removed from office.

For Congress to impeach the President, here are the steps of impeachment, in a nutshell.

  • First, the House opens an inquiry. Power of impeachment rests with the House of Representatives, and is enshrined in Article II, Section II of the United States Constitution.
    • One area of contention in this inquiry has been voting. Under statute, the House is not required to follow any specific procedure to conduct an impeachment inquiry. In the past, a vote in the committee was required to issue subpoenas. Now, as a result of rule changes which occurred 2015, Democratic Committee Chairpersons have unilateral subpoena power (as the majority party). A vote would give Republicans the potential to seek unilateral subpoena power for the Ranking Members of the Committees (Republicans), allowing them to call their own witnesses and potentially change the direction of the inquiry. Speaker Pelosi asserts that the House Committee Chairpersons have all the necessary tools to conduct an inquiry, making a vote redundant.
  • Next, various House committees investigate. The Committees may seek evidence through calling witnesses, issuing subpoenas, and reviewing records. They will determine whether impeachable offenses occurred. The current inquiry is centered in the House Intelligence Committee, due to the nature of the whistleblower complaint, however multiple committees, including the House Oversight and Government Reform and House Judiciary Committee, are involved in the investigation.
    • In this inquiry, the White House has instructed the Department of State not to turn over evidence to House investigators, and has forbidden Department of State employees from testifying before the House. State Department employees are ultimately lead by President Trump, creating a sticky legal dilemma. The House Committees would have to initiate legal action in a federal court to obtain evidence.
  • Afterwards, the House Judiciary Committee reviews the findings. This is done after the various Committees have reviewed their evidence. The Judiciary Committee may recommend the entire House vote on articles of impeachment. To impeach a President, the entire House of Representatives must vote by simple majority. Voting is an involved process in and of itself, as the House must agree on voting method, when to vote, etc.
  • Impeaching a President doesn’t mean they are removed from office. The Senate must hold a trial overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The current Chief Justice is John Roberts. A trial can be lengthy because the Senate will need to establish procedures, review evidence, and actually agree to hold a vote. The President would then be removed if 2/3 of Senators vote in favor of removal. In this Congress, a 2/3 vote would require 12 Republican Senators, and all Democratic Senators, to vote in favor of impeachment.

Currently, the House and Senate are controlled by opposing parties. As a result, it is unlikely the Democratic-controlled House and Republican-controlled Senate would both reach the same conclusion. The inquiry has also become highly partisan, with each side accusing the other of corruption and abuse of power. However, not all evidence has been reviewed or made publicly available. As of October 8th, the White House is refusing to cooperate with the inquiry. It is unclear what will happen next, but it is important to keep in mind impeachment is an extremely difficult and lengthy process.

Edit: This post originally stated that President Richard Nixon was impeached. While the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment, Nixon resigned before there was a vote in the House to adopt the articles. The post has been updated to reflect this.

Edit: This post originally stated that President Andrew Jackson was impeached instead of President Andrew Johnson. 

DACA Goes to the Supreme Court

Posted on

Many higher education organizations, including APLU, filed an amicus brief in the US Supreme Court, supporting University of California in Regents of the University of California v Dept of Homeland Security. The University of California argues the repeal of DACA  has violated the rights of the University and its’ students. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already found the termination of DACA to be unlawful, however the Supreme Court has the final verdict. Universities around the country are concerned that without comprehensive immigration reform, repealing DACA will unduly harm hundreds of thousands of students who have made their home in the United States. UW continues to monitor the case, working closely with our nationwide colleagues.

You can read the full brief here.

UW President Cauce has been very vocal in support of DACA students, and you can find her updates here.

What We’re Reading this Week (September 30th-October 4th, 2019)

Posted on

Here is a selection of articles the Federal Relations team has enjoyed reading this week.

California to Allow Athletes to Profit from Image: California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill which would allow athletes at California universities to enter into brand deals, and profit from their image and likeness. The NCAA objects to this move, arguing that it would eliminate amateurism from college athletics and create an unfair recruiting advantage.  The bill will go into effect in three years, which allows time for the NCAA to mount a response. Visit LA Times for the full story.

NIH Weighs in on Foreign Influence: In an interview with Science, NIH Director of Extramural Research Michael Lauer offered his description as to how the US research enterprise is undermined by foreign influence. According to Lauer, this involves a two-pronged approach of infiltrating grant proposals and setting up overseas shadow labs. The US Government considers the breach of scientific research to be a national security concern, and warns researchers of failure to disclose ties to foreign institutions. Recent crackdowns on undisclosed foreign influence have left several institutions in hot water, and resulted in the dismissal of a number of faculty around the country. Of primary concern is China and the Thousand Talents Program, which leads some to argue that undue scrutiny is being placed on ethnically Chinese researchers.  For the full story see Science Magazine.

Word of Impeachment Gets Louder: The US House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry into President Trump, based on a whistleblower complaint and accusations of quid pro quo, is getting more intense. Trump confidant Rudy Giuliani has been issued a subpoena, the whisteblower is expected to testify before the House Select Committee on Intelligence, and there is further accusations of involvement against members of Trump’s cabinet. The President has lashed out at top Democrats, highlighting strong partisan divides which could potentially distract from other key issues. You can find the latest updates at The Washington Post.

Supreme Court Upholds Internet Deregulation: On Tuesday the US Supreme Court voted to uphold a ruling repealing net neutrality regulations. The Court found that the FCC was within its’ authority to deregulate internet service providers.  This decision earmarks a major victory for the Trump Administration, and could potentially allow internet providers to block content or charge premium prices for accessing certain websites. The Court did also find the FCC cannot bar state and local governments from passing their own regulations, so the debate will likely continue at the local level. For the full story, see The New York Times.

Harvard Wins Controversial Affirmative Action Case: A Federal Judge in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of Harvard University, curtailing a highly controversial court case against affirmative action. The case was brought forth by a group representing Harvard-rejected Asian-American students. The group claims that the Harvard admissions process is racist in favor of Black and Hispanic students. Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that Harvard adhered to the constitutional standard for considering race in admissions. Race may be considered, however it must be one of many factors, and racial quotas are prohibited based on legal precedent. Universities nationwide have been watching this case closely, as college admissions processes have come under scrutiny in light of recent corruption scandals. Read more at The New York Times.

CR Signed, Now What?

Posted on

On Friday, President Trump signed the first continuing resolution of FY2020, buying everyone time until the end of November 21 to figure out the next steps in the appropriations process.

Fights over the border wall and abortion were going to be difficult enough to resolve; the new battles over impeachment will make the entire legislative process even more unpredictable.  Although the majority of Congress left town last Friday on a two-week recess, those involved in impeachment will continue to work on their investigations.

 

Spending Details Now Available

Posted on

The Senate Appropriations Committee has made available the details of the spending bills it cleared yesterday.

The text of the Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) bill is available here and a copy of the report is available here.

The committee has also posted the Interior spending measure and the accompanying report.

With respect to what is in the bills, the Senate CJS legislation would:

  • Fund the National Science Foundation at $8.32 billion, an increase of $242 million above the current level.
    • Within NSF, the Research and Related Activities Account would receive $6.77 billion, an increase of approximately $250 million above current levels.
    • Activities funded through the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction Account would be funded at $253 million, which is $42.5 million below the current level.  The committee funds the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope at the Administration-requested level.
    • Education and Human Resources would see a total of $937 million under this bill.
  • Fund NASA at $22.75 billion, $1.25 billion above the FY2019 level.
    • The Science Mission Directorate would be funded at $6.91 billion.
      • Within Science, the bill proposes to fund the various accounts in the following manner:
        • Earth Science:  $1.945 billion
        • Planetary Science:  $2.631 billion
        • Astrophysics:  $1.171 billion
          • $445.7 million for WFIRST
        • Heliophysics:  $735.0 million
      • Aeronautics:  $725.0 million
      • Space Technology:  $926.9 million
      • STEM Engagement:  $112.0 million
        • Space Grant:  $47.0 million

The Interior Appropriations Bill also funds a number of agencies, programs, and accounts of interest to UW as well.  For example, the committee-approved bill would fund the National Endowment for the Humanities at $157.0 million, $2 million above the current level.

In addition, the bill also funds, among other agencies and programs, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

Within USGS, the report includes the following language with respect to the Climate Adaptation Science Centers:

The new Climate Adaption Science Center sub activity receives $44,488,000. The recommendation includes funding to maintain the fiscal year 2019 levels for the Centers. It is the Committee’s expectation that funding will be distributed according to the allocation methodology in previous years ensuring all Centers remain open and at current levels.

It also contains the following text with respect to the early earthquake warning system:

Natural Hazards.—The bill includes $170,838,000 for Natural Hazards programs. Within the Earthquake Hazards program, the Committee continues to support the multitude of regional earthquake initiatives, but is concerned about the budget structure for each network as it relates to operations, maintenance, and infrastructure; therefore, the Committee directs the Survey to report back within 90 days after enactment of this act with a breakdown of funding between the operations, maintenance, and infrastructure expenditures in 2018 and 2019 along with recommendations on how to better structure the funding for these initiatives. This recommendation provides funding to ensure all the regional networks receive 2019 base funding level for operations and maintenance, including earthquake early warning and the Central and Eastern USNetwork [CEUSN]. Within these amounts, the Committee directs that regional networks which recently acquired the USArray stations from the National Science Foundation receive $3,000,000 for the operations and maintenance as these networks work to incorporate and use all Earthscope data. On top of base operations and maintenance for each network, the recommendation includes $17,500,000 for equipment and infrastructure costs. The Committee is also concerned that the updates to the national seismic hazard maps do not consistently include all 50 States and directs the Survey to update these maps for all 50 States, not just the lower 48, and provides $2,000,000 for this effort.

The Committee is concerned about the lack of knowledge and real time instrumentation available for the Cascadia subduction zone; therefore, the Committee encourages the continued development of a system for Cascadia that will help prepare for and mitigate the negative human and economic impacts of a major seismic event.

The Cooperative Research Units, also funded by the USGS, would receive $18.4 million next year, the same amount as this year.

We will provide further details as the process moves forward.