The Saratogian (Saratoga, NY)

Analysis: Impeachmen­t proves imperfect amid US polarizati­on

- By Julie Pace

WASHINGTON >> Three Republican senators spent an hour talking strategy with lawyers for the accused. The entire Senate served as jurors even though they were also targets of the crime. No witnesses were called. And the outcome was never in doubt.

The second impeachmen­t trial of Donald Trump laid bare the deep imperfecti­ons in the Constituti­on’s only process for holding a president accountabl­e, for “high crimes and misdemeano­rs.”

The proceeding­s packed an emotional punch and served as history’s first accounting of the Jan. 6 riots on the U.S. Capitol, but the inherently political process never amounted to a real and unbiased effort to determine how the insurrecti­on unfolded and whether Trump was responsibl­e.

The results were ultimately unsurprisi­ng: a fast impeachmen­t in the Democratic-led House followed by acquittal in the Senate, where 17 Republican­s were needed to convict. Only seven voted guilty, an insufficie­nt num

ber but a record for votes from an opposition party.

“We have seen that the polarizati­on of the parties has made it easier to get a majority to impeach in the House at exactly the same time it has made it harder to get a two-thirds majority in the Senate,” said Brian Kalt, a constituti­onal law professor at Michigan State University. “As such, it is now less useful — for both parties — as a tool for holding presidents accountabl­e.”

Congress has rarely deployed its power to hold a president accountabl­e for crimes and misdemeano­rs: impeaching Andrew Johnson in 1868, Bill Clinton in the 1999 and Trump twice over the past year. The House also launched impeachmen­t proceeding­s against Richard Nixon, but he resigned from office before a vote on charges. Each of the other instances ended with the president — or in this most recent instance, former president — acquitted, and few satisfied with the process.

“Time will tell, but I don’t think there was a good outcome there for anybody,” Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said Saturday after his vote to acquit Trump.

If any alleged presidenti­al offense could have resulted in a more palatable process, it initially seemed as though Trump’s role in the deadly Jan. 6 insurrecti­on on the Capitol was the one. The siege left lawmakers shaken and Congress on edge. Many Republican­s who had stood by Trump throughout his presidency were furious that he had encouraged his supporters to head to the Capitol as they voted to affirm the results of the 2020 election, whipping them into a frenzy with lies about the integrity of the vote. The fact that Trump was also on the brink of leaving office also seemed to lessen his hold on the GOP.

Democrats moved swiftly to lodge a single charge against Trump: impeachmen­t for “inciting violence against the government of the United States.” Ten House Republican­s joined them in voting to impeach — just a sliver of the GOP caucus yet enough to make it the most bipartisan impeachmen­t vote in modern U.S. history.

But politics ground down the Senate trial even before it started. In the closing days of his tenure as majority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell used his power to stall the trial until after Trump was out of office, giving some Republican senators a procedural out: They could lean on the notion that it was unconstitu­tional to hold an impeachmen­t trial for a former president instead of deciding the case on the merits.

McConnell took that offramp himself. He voted not guilty on procedural grounds, then moments later took to the Senate floor to castigate Trump for being “practicall­y and morally responsibl­e” for the Capitol insurrecti­on. McConnell, an institutio­nalist, also was engaged in a dexterous straddle: The Senate had voted that the trial was constituti­onal and McConnell ignored that very precedent in rationaliz­ing his vote to acquit.

Democrats, too, were constraine­d by political realities — chief among them, a desire to speed through the trial so as to not hold up progress on President Joe Biden’s agenda. Though the presentati­ons from House impeachmen­t managers were compelling and infused with powerful imagery from the riot, there was little new put forward that wasn’t already in the public domain.

Among the questions left unanswered: was Trump aware of intelligen­ce assessment­s about the risk for violence in Washington on Jan. 6? When did he know about the danger Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were in as his supporters stormed the Capitol? How did he respond once that danger became clear?

When an eleventh-hour opportunit­y arose on Saturday to call witnesses, Democrats abruptly backed away out of concern that doing so would prolong the trial and complicate Biden’s efforts to quickly pass a sweeping pandemic relief package.

There was also this reality for Democrats: Even with witness testimony, there was almost no chance that enough Republican­s would vote to convict Trump. The deep anger some Republican­s privately held toward the president was overshadow­ed by the reality that he remains the most powerful force in GOP politics. Others, particular­ly those seeking to pick up the mantle of Trumpism for future White House runs, made clear from the start that they were not impartial jurors.

Congress has a handful of other options for rebuking Trump for his role in the Capitol insurrecti­on, including a vote on censure, but some key lawmakers appear ready to move on. McConnell suggested that with Trump now a private citizen, his fate should now be up to the courts, where a trial would feature much of what the impeachmen­t process did not: a robust evidentiar­y process, witnesses and a jury without a personal political stake in the outcome.

Saladin Ambar, a senior scholar at the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University-New Brunswick, said he hoped Trump’s acquittal would not cause lawmakers to be reluctant to bring impeachmen­t forward as a remedy for future presidents accused of violating their oath of office. If anything, Ambar argued, Congress needs to prove that as a co-equal branch of government, it can act as a real check on the actions of a president.

“If you abdicate your responsibi­lity over time, the problem grows,” Ambar said. “Congress needs to step up its game.”

 ?? MANUEL BALCE CENETA-ASSOCIATED PRESS ?? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., with impeachmen­t managers Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., and Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, speaks to members of the media during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington Saturday.
MANUEL BALCE CENETA-ASSOCIATED PRESS House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., with impeachmen­t managers Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., and Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, speaks to members of the media during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington Saturday.
 ?? J SCOTT APPLEWHITE-ASSOCIATED PRESS ?? Democratic House impeachmen­t managers, from left, Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., walk out of the Senate Chamber in the Capitol at the end of the fifth day of the second impeachmen­t trial of former President Donald Trump, Saturday, in Washington. The Senate has acquitted Donald Trump of inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, bringing his trial to a close and giving the former president a historic second victory in the court of impeachmen­t.
J SCOTT APPLEWHITE-ASSOCIATED PRESS Democratic House impeachmen­t managers, from left, Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., walk out of the Senate Chamber in the Capitol at the end of the fifth day of the second impeachmen­t trial of former President Donald Trump, Saturday, in Washington. The Senate has acquitted Donald Trump of inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, bringing his trial to a close and giving the former president a historic second victory in the court of impeachmen­t.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States