OCTOBER 29, 2019 – ME: I propose a ground rule: I won’t use the word “ass”; you won’t use the words, “sham” and “witch hunt.” Deal?
REPUBLICAN: Deal. You go first.
ME: Impeachment contemplated by the Constitution is an extraordinary remedy to be applied only when the president has committed a seriously wrong act—a high crime or misdemeanor. Thus, impeachment concerns two fundamental questions. First, does the alleged misconduct justify removal from office before the next election? Second, can the alleged misconduct be proved? In Trump’s case the answer to both questions is “yes.” Trump’s pressure on a foreign leader to dig up dirt on Trump’s political opponent fundamentally undermines our electoral process. This so offends our democracy as to constitute impeachable behavior. Although the law is silent regarding the standard of proof for conviction in an impeachment trial, the evidence supports proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”—the highest standard in American law.
REPUBLICAN: Trump’s unorthodoxy has made you Democrats so angry, you’ve wanted to impeach Trump since the day he was inaugurated. When Mueller didn’t deliver what you’d hoped, you launched a campaign to find something—or is it everything?—on which to base impeachment. Running out of time and viable possibilities, you got desperate. You’ve seized on the call between Trump and Zelensky—not because it was “serious misbehavior,” but because it falls outside Mueller’s fizzled investigation, and doesn’t require—or warrant—exhaustive investigation.
As to “standard of proof,” an impeachment trial is a political event. The standard of proof is what two-thirds of the Senators think it is.
ME: The Mueller Report doesn’t exonerate Trump. It invites Congress to pick up where the Special Counsel left off. Multiple Congressional investigations were under way when the Ukraine matter came to light. Trump’s pressure on a foreign leader for Trump’s personal political gain is part of a long pattern of transgressions that threaten the strength and security of our democracy. But you’re right: Trump’s pressure on Zelensky is the clearest example of irrefutable facts and gravity of ramifications. Our democracy cannot take the risk of an unbridled, unscrupulous Trump in the 2020 campaign. The continued damage he’d wreak would threaten the very foundations of our Republic.
Senators who choose to reject proof beyond a reasonable doubt will have to answer to their consciences—and their constituents.
REPUBLICAN: The transcript of Trump’s conversation with Zelensky contains insufficient evidence of “arm-twisting,” certainly not to a degree that justifies impeachment—a dangerous precedent in a democracy. Besides, in the end, Zelensky got what he wanted—military aid—and Trump did not get what you allege he wanted (an investigation into Biden). No harm, no foul.
Irrefutable proof that you dislike Trump is not sufficient proof for impeachment.
ME: You wouldn’t let a would-be murderer go simply because his aim was off. With motives clear and weapon in hand, he’s still a serious threat to democracy. Proof of wrong-doing and its severity is in the testimony of the most eminently credible witnesses: Taylor, Hill, Yovanovitch, and now, Vindman—no “radical lefties” these!
(Remember to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.)
© 2019 Eric Nilsson
