Mount Holyoke perspectives on Trump’s impeachment

BY DECLAN LANGTON ’22


Since the whistleblower complaint brought to light the July 25 call between President Trump and newly-elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, talk of impeachment has occupied American news and minds. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced on Sept. 24 that the U.S. House of Representatives had launched a formal impeachment inquiry. Soon after, House Democrats began to issue subpoenas to White House officials, diplomats and President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, further speeding up the process.

The basics of impeachment are laid out in the Constitution. 

Article I, Section 2 states that the House of Representatives has the sole “power of impeachment” and Article I, Section 3 says that the Senate is the only body that can do impeachment trials. Article II, Section 4 mentions the viable reasons for impeachment, stating “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” 

Only two U.S. presidents have ever previously been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Both were 
later acquitted by the Senate, which means that the current impeachment inquiry has the potential to explore many new aspects of the American political realm.

Here are some perspectives from the Mount Holyoke community.

No representatives from the Mount Holyoke College Republicans were able to comment.

Maggie Micklo ’21, Communications Director for Mount Holyoke Democrats

Communications Director for Mount Holyoke Democrats Maggie Micklo ’21 was at ease talking through the political climate of the last few weeks. 

“Politics is kind of all I do,” she joked at the beginning of the conversation. 

Micklo explained how she began the summer uncertain of her opinions toward the idea of impeaching President Trump. However, through an internship on Capitol Hill with Representative Sean Casten (D-IL), her view has shifted. 

“Almost every phone call at the beginning of the summer were concerned constituents calling about impeachment and it really changed my point of view because the sense of urgency that they had was so genuine and important,” she explained. 

Congressman Casten, as she recalled, made his decision after reading through the entirety of the Mueller Report. Despite it not being what she called “the right move politically,” as he might lose voters, Casten still came out in support of an impeachment inquiry. Micklo thought this showed the importance and severity of the procedure and decision to follow through with it. 

“He is willing to lose his seat over this,” she said. “People were willing to put things on the line.” 

Making a decision about impeachment based on a political move, however, isn’t something Micklo can get behind.

“Electorally, are members of Congress going to get hurt if they impeach the president or come out in support of it? I don’t think that’s really a conversation that’s healthy to have because we should be focusing on doing the right thing,” she said. “Come on, we’ve read the reports. I’d rather have them do the right thing than think about what’s politically smart.”

Like Czitrom, Micklo isn’t convinced that these proceedings will lead to Trump’s reelection in 2020. 

“I do worry that it would strengthen [Trump’s] base, but I don’t know how many more people it would convince. It seems like the tides are turning in polling — more and more people are supporting impeachment and that shift has really been from independents,” she said. “That’s hopeful to see because Trump needs independents to win.”

She turned towards past presidential impeachments for some clarity and prediction making. “I think the evidence is a bit stronger than with the Bill Clinton impeachment … it seemed much more partisan and much more domestic-based and personal, and this has international implications. It feels broader,” Micklo said. 

“I’m curious to see if this wave of public shifting becomes more,” she said, referencing the growing number of independents that are supporting impeachment. 

The statistics website FiveThirtyEight, founded and edited by ABC News special correspondent Nate Silver, found that approximately 46.4 percent of independents now support impeachment, a number that has been growing since September. 



Daniel Czitrom, History Professor

“There is a reason impeachment is in the Constitution,” history professor Daniel Czitrom said. “There was particular concern about the president acting like an all-powerful monarch.” Because of this, impeachment became one of several measures, including the “emoluments clause,” originally created as a means to limit the power of the president.

Moving forward in American history, Czitrom spoke about the Nixon impeachment proceedings. 

“I would say there are two articles of impeachment from the Nixon impeachment that are particularly relevant today: obstruction of justice and abuse of power,” he said. 

There was a difference between the two cases, however. 

“In the case of Nixon, you did eventually have a bipartisan group of people pushing for impeachment,” Czitrom said.

That brings to attention what Czitrom calls the “looming question”: “will any Republicans peel away?” 

On both sides, “political calculations are going on,” he said, cautious about making too many assumptions about the parties’ thought processes. 

“Trump is gambling that the impeachment controversy will help him, certainly with his base, but whether it will help him get reelected, I don’t see that,” Czitrom said. 

“I think this plays into his whole narrative of being a victim. Conservatives love to see themselves as victims,” he added. 

Turning in his chair, Czitrom spoke to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s impact on the proceedings. 

“Once you get the leadership behind it, I don’t think it’s going to fail,” he said. “There were people who supported impeachment before this, but that did not include the House leadership.”

On Wednesday, a U.S. diplomat in Ukraine testified that D.C. higher-ups had threatened to withhold military aid for Ukraine unless its government agreed to launch investigations for Trump’s political gain. 

“Nancy Pelosi and the House leadership are the ones that really decide this, and she’s only come on board as a result of the Ukrainian situation,” Czitrom said. 

He emphasized the importance of remembering that Speaker Pelosi originally opposed impeachment. 

“There were a number of people in the caucus that pushed for votes, there were a number of votes on impeachment, they all lost,” he said. 

Czitrom’s final takeaway was his advice for those watching: do research about the history of impeachments, and more importantly its origins. 

“It’s incumbent upon citizens, students, to read the Constitution, see what the process is all about. And to try to understand that this is a legitimate Constitutional power of the Congress, unlike Mr. Giuliani and others that say this is unconstitutional — they just don’t like it,” he said. 

“It’s important for people to try to get beyond the endless partisan fighting and bickering.”