NOVEMBER 15, 2019 – Let’s understand: impeachment and trial are political procedures conducted according to rules set by the House (impeachment) and Senate (trial). Impeachment/removal proceedings are not legal proceedings subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence, which render hearsay testimony inadmissible (subject to certain exceptions) . . . and to the Rules of Civil/Criminal Procedure, under which subpoenae designed to secure direct evidence cannot be ignored with impunity.
People who discount impeachment evidence because it’s “hearsay” have every right to do so, but hearsay evidence can’t be excluded from impeachment proceedings. Thus, Republicans’ “hearsay” criticism of impeachment evidence is misplaced—and disingenuous when you consider how the White House orders subpoenaed witnesses not to appear.
But “the evidence” is only half the matter. The other half is the import of the evidence.
Does the evidence—hearsay and otherwise—convince members of Congress (and constituents) that the president has committed either “bribery” or “treason”—explicitly identified by the Constitution as impeachable? If neither bribery nor treason applies, does the evidence convince Congress (by extension, constituents) that the president committed some other bad act, justifying his/her removal before the end of the current term? If so, then a vote for impeachment (House) and removal (Senate) are required if the oath to uphold the Constitution is to have any meaning.
From a politically pragmatic viewpoint, the above questions can be asked more simply: “Which way is the wind blowing?” But from a “country first” perspective, the questions must be read this way: “What sort of precedent will impeachment/removal (or non-impeachment/acquittal) establish?”
Precedent must be considered from short-term and long-term perspectives. From a short-term vie, every member of Congress casting a vote needs to ask, what will Trump do if he’s not impeach/removed? Let’s be honest. Given his pattern of behavior, he will read a “no” vote as full license to solicit any and every foreign government to dig up dirt—real or imagined—on his Democratic opponent.
Which . . . underscores powerfully why the framers included an impeachment provision in the Constitution. The “bad act” here is the application of presidential power (implicit and explicit leverage over an ally in distress) for the purpose of extending that power via re-election—what the Democrats are rightfully calling abuse of power. If we look to the 2020 election as the alternative to impeachment, we encourage the very behavior in question—abuse of power to get himself re-elected! What could be a more clear-cut reason for impeachment and removal before an election?
From a long-term perspective, the precedent established in Trump’s case will govern the future “bad acting” Democrat (“Socialist”?) president. Moreover, if we allow our own head of state to open the door to foreign interference in our elections, what will stop future foreign interference from barging in?
If they don’t now come to their senses, Congressional Republicans will rue the day they bartered away their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution for cover from nasty Tweets by the Abuser in Chief.
(Remember to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.)
© 2019 Eric Nilsson
