With only two defectors, the Republican majority in the US Senate voted to reject hearing any additional witnesses or considering any further evidence in the ongoing impeachment trial of President Trump.
This is a news article by the editor.
Given the hyper-partisan atmosphere on Capitol Hill, the result of the effort to hear additional witnesses and consider further evidence was no surprise. Still, the partisan-line vote to slam the door on the notion of an open and thorough trial has left many Americans reeling.
Until just a few days ago, observers and analysts were confident that at least four Republican Senators planned to vote for more witnesses. This observation was punctuated by revelations from the transcripts of John Bolton’s upcoming book. Reports have said it includes first-hand observations of Trump’s intention to use Ukrainian aid in a quid pro quo effort to undermine his political opponent, Joe Biden.
But in the days leading up to the vote, Senators Lisa Murkowski and Lamar Alexander ended speculation of their intentions by announcing they would vote against witnesses. In the end, the only Republicans to vote for witnesses were Senators Mitt Romney and Susan Collins.
Republicans are defending their decision to block new witnesses by asserting the impeachment query in the House of Representatives was incomplete and rushed by Democrats who have wanted to impeach the President since he took office.
Republicans argue that by concluding the impeachment trial as quickly as possible, they are putting an end to a sham impeachment that has only succeeded in distracting the nation from more pressing concerns. Ultimately, they argue, the votes will never be there to remove the President. They assert that to continue the trial by allowing further witnesses and evidence would be an exercise in futility.
Others, including myself, respond to these Republican assertions by pointing to the Senate’s responsibilities under the Constitution and the oaths sworn by the Senators at the beginning of the trial.
However deficient the House inquiry may have been, the House met its Constitutional threshold to impeach the President. In the wake of the crisis of legitimacy that an impeachment represents, the Senate’s duty is to conduct an honest and open trial. The goal of this trial should be to either credibly acquit the President in the eyes of the people or to arrive upon a determination that the facts actually warrant the removal of the President. We could assume that such a complete process would include new and additional revelations, including the testimony of new witnesses.
In my view, the process of House inquiry and the likelihood of removal should have little bearing in the Senate’s responsibility to perform their duties according to their Constitutional mandate. In the end, many Americans are viewing Republican arguments against additional witnesses as simply the excuses they’re offering for a failure to perform their duty.
By choosing the fast-track to Donald Trump’s acquittal, the Senate has arguably chosen to undermine its own legitimacy in the eyes of the American people. Additionally, the Republican Party’s fate in the 2020 election is now irreversibly tied to the fate of Donald Trump. Polls are already suggesting voters are not going to respond positively to a rushed acquittal that ignores key witnesses to the alleged charges. Even if the Democrats choose a hard-left candidate unpalatable to moderates and independents, allowing Donald Trump to win out this fall, chances seem high that the Republican Party will still lose its majority in the Senate.
The final chapters in the impeachment story are now set to play out. In what amounts to a victory lap, the President will offer his State of the Union address next Tuesday, followed by what will surely be an acquittal vote on Wednesday.
Even if Trump’s conduct doesn’t warrant removal, even if it didn’t warrant impeachment in the first place, principled Americans who support the ideals of the US Constitution might have hoped the Senate would have conducted itself in a manner better befitting its moniker as “the world’s most deliberative body.”
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.
Justin Stapley is the owner and editor of The Liberty Hawk and the voice of The New Centrist Podcast. As a political writer, his principles and ideals are grounded in the ideas of ordered liberty as expressed in the traditions of classical liberalism, federalism, and modern conservatism. You can follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.
- The Liberty Hawk is Now on Medium - December 9, 2020
- Betraying Allies Is Not the Way to Avoid Being the World’s Police - August 14, 2020
- The Last Full Measure of Devotion - August 13, 2020