I have mixed feelings about the impeachment proceedings.
On the one hand, a majority of Americans would prefer to wait until the 2020 election to consider the future of Donald Trump. Many people think the hearings are a waste of time since it is considered virtually impossible that 20 Republican senators will side with Democrats to remove the president from office.
So why bother? The answer of course, is if a president commits a wrongful act, it is the constitutional duty for Congress to investigate and determine if the act is impeachable. About 70% of Americans believe the acts were wrong. Does anyone honestly believe if the tables were turned, we would all hold the same position we now hold? So, yes, I guess the hearings are needed no matter how unlikely that the president will be removed from office.
It boils down to whether Trump’s actions constitute an impeachable offense. Opinions will differ. But let’s first consider how Trump or congressional Republicans could have easily avoided this mess. Had the president admitted making an error in judgment and apologized to the American people, he would have blown the steam out of the impeachment momentum. Further, if Republicans had told him he was wrong and agreed to censure him — a purely symbolic gesture — the matter would most likely have blown over. But Trump never apologizes, period; and congressional Republicans are too fearful of Trump’s core supporters to stand up to him no matter what he does.
Have both political parties acted poorly here? Absolutely. Democrats should have been more flexible with Republican procedural demands. Some of the GOP’s complaints were valid. Republicans, on the other hand, could have acted in a mature manner rather than making unseemly attacks on witnesses. It was shameful for them to impugn their motives. It was dishonorable to imply they were traitors or agents of Russia or Ukraine. Especially when only one actor in this melodrama acted in a manner that aided Russia, and that is the man in the White House.
Were Trump’s actions defensible? Apparently not, as Republicans attacked procedures and witnesses without defending his actions.
Were his acts impeachable? If I were a Democratic Senator, I would not vote to impeach solely over using his power of office in order to withhold an official White House visit for Ukraine to announce an investigation meant to embarrass a potential 2020 opponent. It would still be an illicit act by a president, but not, I believe, sufficient for conviction.
But we also have to consider Trump’s withholding congressionally approved arms funding to defend Ukraine from Russian aggression unless the president of Ukraine announced both an investigation into the Bidens AND the ridiculous and debunked theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in our 2016 election. America’s intelligence community already entered into that debacle of a debate, and they made it crystal clear that Vladimir Putin originated that theory. Nonetheless, the president maintains this fraud. When you couple both these factors, you must consider whether his quid pro quo crossed the line into bribery. A number of Trump supporters say there was no quid pro quo since the announcements were not made and Ukraine eventually received their promised aid. That ignores two facts: The release came only after the whistleblower made light of Trump’s wrongdoing and another sector of the government took steps to release the funds.
Were these impeachable acts? You decide, but if you thought Bill Clinton deserved impeachment over lying about sex, you’d better be honest with yourself.
Michael Adkins formerly was chair of the Hancock County Democratic Party. Send comments to [email protected].
