A vote in defense of democracy
The debate in the House of Representatives was at times solemn and at others ludicrous, even as it was impassioned and partisan throughout. As member after member rose for his or her rapidfire minute or less of oratory, the session had almost everything but drama about the outcome. The Democrats had the votes and the compelling evidence that President Trump violated his oath of office through abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
In largely partyline votes on each article, the 45th president of the United States became only the third to be impeached.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, DSan Francisco, who had long resisted calls within her caucus to impeach Trump, opened the debate in straightforward eloquence.
“If we do not act now, we would be derelict in our duty,” she said. “It is tragic that the president’s reckless actions make impeachment necessary. He gave us no choice.”
No choice, that is, unless Americans would have been willing to accept that a president could use military aid and a White House visit as leverage to get a foreign government to do his or her political bidding. No choice, that is, unless Americans want to upend the Constitution’s allocation of balance of powers by allowing a president to thoroughly stonewall the oversight authority of Congress.
No choice, that is, unless Americans have faith that a president who is unrepentant to this day — and benefited from Russian meddling in the 2016 election — will not keep crossing the boundaries of foreign interference in elections that the framers so worried about.
“This is a crime spree in progress,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, DDublin, said in the debate. “But we know how to stop it. Courage.”
What was striking in Wednesday’s debate was the absence of a credible challenge to the baseline evidence as outlined by sworn witnesses (including several Trump appointees) in the House intelligence committee hearings: that $391 million in military aid was put on hold amid the attempts to get newly installed President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation into the lucrative post Joe Biden’s son had with a Ukraine energy company, that the money was not released until after a whistleblower’s complaint about the scheme became known, and the White House has not released a single document or witness requested by Congress.
Instead, there was a lot of fire and fury and attempt to accuse the Democrats of trying to overturn an election. One GOP Congress member compared the Democratic investigation to the redbaiting by Sen. Joe McCarthy in the 1950s; another complained that “Jesus Christ was given more due process rights before his crucifixion” than Trump received in this process.
Trump, meanwhile, was as unhinged as ever, tweeting in all caps about “ATROCIOUS LIES BY THE RADICAL LEFT” and sending a sixpage impeachmenteve letter to Pelosi that accused her of “declaring open war on American Democracy.”
Indeed, the Democrats’ willingness to pursue impeachment — despite the risk that it might backfire on them in the 2020 elections — was nothing less than a defense of democracy.
It soon will be up to the U.S. Senate to rise to its constitutional duty. The partisan alignment would suggest that Trump will be acquitted despite the damning evidence of his wrongdoing. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, RKy., has only added to that impression by refusing Democrats’ request to call witnesses such as acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton. McConnell accused Democrats Wednesday of misusing “the solemn process of impeachment to blow off partisan steam.”
He and other senators are supposed to serve as objective jurors. Their oaths are about to be tested as never before.
History is watching.
What was striking in Wednesday’s debate was the absence of a credible challenge to the evidence against President Trump.