Column: Destroying Democracy: An Unconstitutional Impeachment
The official impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump began on Sept. 24, 2019, and has taken the news by storm. Nearly every headline has supported House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in her declaration that Trump is guilty of “betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”
This impeachment inquiry began because of a phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump allegedly asked the Ukrainian leader for a favor, which in this case was to look into Joe Biden’s involvement with Ukraine. After Pelosi launched the official inquiry, The White House released the transcript of the phone call in question, and nothing in the transcript suggested a quid pro quo. Additionally, both Trump and Zelensky have denied the allegations from the beginning. However, the inquiry continues on. Why?
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy believes the impeachment inquiry is about more than a phone call. He said in a statement that Democrats “have been trying to reverse the results of the 2016 election since President Trump took office. For them, this is all about politics. Not about facts.” McCarthy has a point. If the impeachment inquiry was in motion because of a shady phone call and the transcripts of that call have been released, why hasn’t the inquiry been dropped? The answer is clear: Pelosi and her fellow Democrats ignore the truth because they want Trump out of office, even if it compromises their integrity. Regardless of the evidence that prove Trump’s innocence, the inquiry will continue.
The democratic party has been participating in increasingly brazen actions towards Trump – climaxing with this impeachment inquiry – as the 2020 election approaches, a race they fear will lead to another victory for Trump. Rep. Al Green told MSNBC 2 that he is “concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected. As I look the people of America in the eye, I’m telling you, we have a constitutional crisis.” All due respect Mr. Green, but the only constitutional crisis at hand is the one that Nancy Pelosi is levying at the President of the United States of America. The only reason an inquiry is taking place is because the people of the democratic party are losing their minds thinking about Trump winning the upcoming election. It is not driven by a search for truth, but rather by fear and hate towards Trump. Instead of accepting the democracy of the nation, Democrats are attempting to rewrite the rules because their candidate lost the presidential election. Three years ago.
This vitriol towards President Trump has exploded all across the media in the United States, and that includes our little university here in Logan, Utah. I have found that when discussions at USU turn to politics, the most outspoken students spew hatred towards Trump. While I understand disliking a president that you disagree with, I do not understand the ridiculous amount of aggression and hate towards a person, especially a president. Hate blinds. Hate creates bias. And because of the incredible amount of hate towards President Trump, the real story regarding the impeachment inquiry has been replaced by a false narrative that paints Trump to be unconstitutional. An impeachment of President Trump would not only be unconstitutional, but also be a tool to destroy the democracy in the United States.
Lead image from AP Photo/Kevin Wolf
“Hate blinds. Hate creates bias.”
What an absolute joke of an article. Donald Trump has done nothing but spew vitriol from the moment he ran for President. From denying residency to black apartment seekers, to calling Mexicans rapists and criminals, to admitting to grabbing women by their genitalia without consent because “when you’re a star you can do anything”, he has proven he is a hateful, horrible person. So please, cry me a river about hatred and bias towards POTUS. Calling the president out for his actions should applauded, not condemned.
Not to mention, his allies have literally ADMITTED there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine, so an impeachment inquiry is more than justified (not to mention the laundry list of other offenses). Donald Trump is a criminal, and will be brought justice through this impeachment process.
Sam, do you have reliable sources on “his allies have literally ADMITTED…”? I have found no reliable proof, which is what this timely article states.
Sam, do you have any reliable sources for your statement “his allies literally admitted…”? I have no reliable source on that statement. It may not be based on truth, which is exactly what this article is stating.
Sam,
Your complaints are exactly what the author of the article exposes. You twist words saying Trump calls mexicans rapists and criminals. Trump simply, correctly stated some of tge illegals entering tgis country are criminals and racists. It was the dems and left wing media that extrapolated it claiming Trump put this label on all of them.
Either you know this and are dishonest like the author claims pelosie is or you are a left wing sheep who knows nothing other than what your media and party tell you to believe.
Your other points also have significant weakness but I will not give them time here. I hope you can find intellectual honesty in yourself in the future and an ability to search for information rather than just be spoon-fed.
By the way I did not vote for Trump and I find his moral failings significant however i am in favor of the Republic and democratic elections rather than coups.
A few points:
1) The Constitution vests impeachment procedures with the House. The notion it’s “unconstitutional” is absurd on its face. If the evidence is insufficient, the Republican-controlled Senate can vote to acquit. That’s how the system is laid out in the Constitution itself.
2) You’re correct the proceedings are about more than a single phone call. It’s about a pattern of conduct, holding up Congressionally appropriated aid to an ally in an attempt to leverage political material. That came to light with the phone call, but as we’ve seen, there were many additional interactions between Ukranian officials and the State department (to say nothing of the involvement of Rudy, who was acting as an agent of Donald Trump–not the United States–per his own statements).
3) The claim that “nothing suggested quid pro quo” is ridiculous, for ma number of reasons:
i. The summary of the call (note-not a transcript, as the document itself states) included several references to a quid pro quo. “I’d like you to do us a favor though” being primary among them.
ii. Mick Mulvaney himself, in a press briefing, admitted to the quid pro quo, and asked “so what?”
iii. Several individuals associated with the ongoing pressure campaign have testified under oath that aid was conditional on “dirt on Burisma and the Bidens.” For example:
a. Bill Taylor: “That was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the President committed to pursue the investigation.”
b. Gordon Sondland, Trump mega donor “I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,”
c. Marie Yovanovich’s testimony regarding Rudy and the shadow foreign policy.