an attempt at whataboutism? Originally Posted by nevergaveitathoughtNo. You misunderstand. You go from feeling like impeachment, as a boy, is a solemn event. To feeling like it's a joke now. Describe your feelings in the middle.
Whether or not one supports impeachment of President Trump, a number of key takeaways have flowed from these proceedings.Thanks new Party of Trumpettes.
First, the president of the United States used the power of his office to leverage a foreign government to interfere in domestic politics. By itself, leverage of a foreign government in support of national interests is nothing new. However, leverage of a foreign government in order to pursue a one's domestic political agenda is at best improper, and at worse an abuse of presidential power. That leverage definitively included a meeting with the president, a visit to the White House and the ability to purchase Javelin anti-tank weapons. The disclosure that the foreign government needed only to make a high-visibility public relations statement announcing the investigations versus actual conduct of the investigations solidifies the political nature of the president's requested favor.
Second, less clear is whether the president purposefully prioritized his political interests over national security by delaying security assistance funding to an ally. If such occurred it would clearly be an abuse of presidential power. The lack of clarity results from the president's decision to block access to records and personnel with direct knowledge of the matter. That said, the delay clearly fits within the ongoing pattern of leverage. Security assistance funding had been authorized and appropriated by Congress, then signed into law by the president himself on two separate occasions. While the president has the right to change policy with regard to appropriations he signed into law, to do so he is required by law to notify Congress in writing, which he did not do. The answer, damning or exculpatory, lies within records that the president does not want seen. That raises the simple question as to why the president would bury an exculpatory answer.
Third, while it is clear that the president leveraged a foreign government for political benefit, it is also equally clear that such leverage failed. There has been no White House visit, security assistance was eventually released, additional Javelins will be procured and the investigations requested by the president have neither been announced nor conducted. Congress must decide whether or not to impeach upon a bungled attempt to abuse or at a minimum to censure that failed attempt.
Fourth, the president steadfastly holds that he did nothing wrong. This implies either an inability to recognize improper conduct or a blatant disregard for improper conduct given the power of position. The former should result in the president's being voted out of office, while the latter would argue for impeachment.
Fifth, in addition to blocking access to pertinent materials and testimony, and publicly denigrating and intimidating those whose testimony he disliked, the president throughout these proceedings went to great length to misrepresent the legitimacy and seriousness of impeachment. Some will see this as merely a defensive distraction while others see a more serious attempt to obstruct Congress' obligations. In either case, the president's consistent misrepresentation of the Constitution fails to uphold his oath of office to protect and defend it.
Finally, impeachment is a legitimate action under the United States Constitution. The framers of the Constitution fully recognized the partisan nature of impeachment, and such was surely on full display throughout these proceedings. Nonetheless, the framers also believed in Congress' ability to ultimately act apolitically in executing a solemn responsibility. Accusers and defenders alike are sworn to support a Constitution that, at the end of the day, expects they will set bias aside and act based upon honor. It is their duty to do so.
By Tom Harrington
