This is an editorial submission from a reader like you. We consider all submissions.
The Press and many people of diverse political allegiances are shouting from the rooftops (or from their Twitter feeds) that “President Trump is impeached” with varying amounts of enthusiasm. The House of Representatives voted to impeach the President for “Obstruction of Congress” and “Abuse of Power” by a mostly party-line vote.
There were 2 Democrats who voted against the articles – one, Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, has now officially switched parties over this disagreement with his colleagues. Former Republican and newly Independent Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan voted for both articles.
Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii voted “Present” on both articles, earning her a lot of derision (notably from the freshman Representative from New York). Rep. Gabbard released a statement attacking the partisanship of the entire process, the futility of the vote, and the need to unify the country – one of the major platforms in her Presidential bid.
Regardless of how you may feel about any of these votes, it does seem important to ask, “What happens now?”
Noah Feldman, a law professor at Harvard and a witness at the impeachment hearing, recently penned an op-ed at Bloomberg where he says the House has not actually impeached the President until it sends members to the Senate and presents the charges to the body for a trial. Contrary to what many people on Twitter and in the House seem to believe, “[i]mpeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial.”
As Justin has noted recently in his editor’s corner, the Senate has an obligation to hold a trial – to take this whole thing seriously. However, if the House never bothers to send the articles over to the Senate, what was the point of the hearings, the votes, and the press conferences?
Although negotiations are ongoing, Congress is on winter recess and won’t reconvene until mid-January. Speaker Pelosi has said she doesn’t plan on sending the articles to the Senate until she knows what kind of trial Majority Leader McConnell plans on having.
Although it probably isn’t likely, it would be in character for Speaker Pelosi to never send the articles over and for there never to be a trial. This would mean President Trump has not actually been impeached. It would also mean all of the talk of an “immediate threat to our democracy” was little more than theatrics and hyperbole.
Talking about solemn duties while voting for something without any intention of following through wouldn’t be new for members of Congress, especially Democratic members in the last couple of years. They did this with immigration and regularly do this after mass shootings, but to do this type of hollow gesture and grandstanding over impeachment would be a new low.
Shouting into the void “Someone should do something!” and then, upon realizing who should actually be doing something, shrugging and saying, “Well, maybe not that person” is not how Congress should treat any issue, least of all something as important as impeaching a sitting President.
Everyone knew from the beginning that the impeachment would end with an acquittal in the Senate. If the House doesn’t complete the process, they are the threat to our constitutional order, not the President. Voting to impeach but never following through, in essence, hoping to score political points and damage a sitting President up for reelection, should not be a precedent.
We cannot let this become the norm. It is wasteful and disruptive. The House Democrats made this bed, and they need to lie in it now and live the potential nightmare that is coming – the reelection of Donald Trump.
If the goal of this entire process is to damage the President’s reputation without giving him a chance to defend himself in a friendly Senate, Speaker Pelosi should push the legislation submitted by Rep. Gabbard to censure the President for his actions.
A censure does not require any additional actions from the Senate. It has been used in the past to mark a presidential action as wrong without pushing for the more controversial removal from office. This particular censure could gain bipartisan support and would function as a more effective means of damaging the legacy of President Trump than an impeachment that will fail in the Senate and most likely lead to his reelection.
Bill Clinton’s impeachment was in his second term, but his approval ratings improved after acquittal in the Senate. The American people saw through the partisanship of the entire process and rewarded Democrats during the election after the impeachment.
President Clinton’s impeachment had more bipartisan support than President Trump’s (Democrats actually did vote to approve the articles of impeachment against Clinton), and Trump’s approval ratings have been moving upwards since the impeachment process began.
With the exception of Nixon (who’s impeachment never received a vote because he resigned after being told removal was inevitable), no President has gone through the impeachment process without some vindication afterward.
Andrew Johnson was vindicated when they repealed the Tenure of Office Act, and the Supreme Court has since declared the legislation unconstitutional. Democrats gained seats after the Impeachment of Clinton, and his own clout among Democrats has not waned even after the MeToo era and Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest.
Impeachment is a political process with political ramifications. Democrats in the House need to follow through and send the articles to the Senate. Republicans in the Senate should hold a real trial with witnesses and testimony. Everyone should be prepared for the political fallout of their votes and actions. As Julius Caesar famously said when crossing the Rubicon, alea iacta est.
Do you have a response to this article? Would you like to offer your own take on this topic? Feel free to submit your own article or offer a comment below.
Thaddeus R. Winker is a father and husband living in the Midwest and a frequent contributor to The Liberty Hawk. By day he works as a software developer but in a past life, he earned an MA in Biblical Studies at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC and a BA in Classics from Xavier University in Cincinnati, OH. He enjoys fantasy, science fiction, and spending time with his family. You can follow him on twitter @Thadypus.