The impeachment of President Donald Trump is neither surprising nor shocking. Since November 9, 2016, the American public expected the Democratic Party would seek the removal of President Donald Trump from office at their first opportunity. At the time, the only questions were whether they would get the opportunity and how reasoned their case would be. Society plagued with a high level of political division might not handle partisan political ploys well. The hunt for power creates the justifications for means in the minds of the party seeking control.
No person or entity is above the law. Regardless of party affiliation, political ideology, or record of achievement. Corruption or direct violations of law is not offset by level of accomplishment or success. Just raises the stakes for the accusers. The political leanings of the process must be considered as well. Our criminal justice system cannot be used to reverse the will of fair and free elections for partisan endeavors.
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT:
Along party lines, the House of Representatives formally accused President Donald Trump of two crimes. Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Two week of public hearings preceded the adoption of changes filled with high levels of political sensationalism. House leaders promised irrefutable and overwhelming charges. As always, they under-delivered.
The abuse of power is a common accusation against Presidents of both parties from their opposition. In this charge, Democrats accused President Trump of using his power as president to assist his possible political outcomes by seeking to attain damaging information on a potential political opponent. This related to a call and inquiry into actions occurring in Ukraine while Biden was Vice President. The initial talking points for this was deeming it a quid pro quo, which is not always illegal, but frequently used. Polling showed bribery was a more attractive word for prospective voters.
There was not enough evidence to push forward with a bribery charge. From the public hearings, there was little evidence provided to connect delays in funding with request for investigations. There was little evidence to show funds were materially delayed. Much of the testimony was from people without direct knowledge or memory. The only bombshell also provided the refutation of a quid pro quo actually existing.
In the second article of impeachment, Democrats accused President Trump of obstructing Congress. The charge was a result of President Trump deeming the House investigation as a political witch-hunt and not allowing staff to cooperate. The charge is a far less serious one than obstruction of justice. In reality, every modern-day president could face an obstruction of Congress charge, as every recent presidential administration has withheld information or testimony sought by Congress. Congress frequently decries this behaviors as it impedes its constitutional role and limits its authority to oversee the actions of the other branches, including the executive branch.
REASONABILITY:
The Constitution affords Congress the authority for impeachment and removal of a President for committing of high crimes and misdemeanors. There is not a clear definition of what these high crimes entail. But, many people reasonably crimes like murder, treason, mutiny, or crimes like that reach that level. Our history with impeachment demonstrates that Congress rarely worries about standard. All our past impeachments were highly political, and Trump’s was no exception.
Democrats want to use the appearance of a crime as enough reason to remove a political opponent. Anger, disappointment, and power grabs are not sufficient reason to remove a sitting President. For two years, every person across every political spectrum knew Democrats would pursue impeachment. Even after failing with the Russia collusion narrative, they did not seem to craft a strong case. This was case built on desperation.
RESULTS:
The outcome in the United States Senate was not much of a surprise for many reasons. The GOP controlled Senate had the votes for acquittal. There was little to no evidence presented by House Democrats to change pre-existing opinions. As expected, the United States Senate, controlled by the GOP, voted to acquit President Donald Trump on both articles of impeachment.
There was a great level of political hysteria infused in the process. In our constitution, the House of Representatives is tasked with investigating the offending government official and passing articles of impeachment to go to the Senate. The Senate is tasked with holding trial for that official, with Chief Justice presiding over a presidential impeachment. The Senate is not tasked with opening its own investigation or building on the charges presented to it. That is against our accepted system of justice.
Again, the appearance of a crime is not the same thing as a crime actually existing. In the Russia collusion investigation, Democrats used evidence they had a role in funding as the basis for investigating Trump. With Ukraine, they used hearsay evidence to pursue impeachment and cover possible corruption by then Vice President Joe Biden. Some question whether impeachment was legitimate or a partisan ploy. It appears to be clearly a partisan ploy.
LIVING THE DREAM
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is an iconic figure in the annals of American history. Dr. King exemplified the ability for an individual outside the typical halls of power to make indelible change in our society. All Americans, regardless of background, benefited from Dr. King’s message. A message establishing hope for a society united harmoniously regardless of race. Despite our challenges, America must strive to reduce social tension related to race, gender, and other demographics.