Democrats across the nation and in Connecticut’s U.S.
Congressional Delegation, all-Democrat since 2009, are assembling their
adjectives to describe a recent vote in the U.S. House on the question of an
“impeachment resolution,” which is not at all the same thing as a vote in the
House on a bill of impeachment.
In an impeachment proceeding, the U.S. House of Representatives
produces and then votes yes or no on a bill containing articles of impeachment.
If the vote carries in the Democrat controlled House, it then passes to the
Republican controlled U.S. Senate, which conducts a trial. If a sufficient
number of senators, sitting as a jury, find the offender guilty of the charges
specified in the bill, the offender is removed from office, the only punishment
that can be visited upon an impeached government official.
Though the question “What is an impeachable offense” has
over the years been the subject of intense debate, much like the Medieval
question “How many angels can fit on the head of a pin,” impeachment generally
is whatever the House says it is, and the present House is a Democrat held
fortress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi presiding over the drawbridge.
Pelosi was against impeachment before she was for it.
She once solemnly proclaimed her opposition to impeachment and now, as
solemnly, has proclaimed her approval of impeachment. Democrats have been
attempting, in fits and starts, to deny Donald Trump his place in the
presidential sun ever since he deprived Democrat nominee for President Hillary
Clinton her place in the presidential sun in 2016.
The much touted Mueller Report was supposed to show Trump
had “colluded” with President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, to so effect the 2016
election as to tip voting scales in favor of Trump. But the Mueller Report
provided no instances of collusion. For two years, Mueller searched and
searched and searched. He came up empty, contenting himself with
prosecuting various political actors on what are called “process crimes.” But
on the matter of collusion with a foreign power, there was no there there in
the Mueller report. On the matter of obstruction of justice, Democrats have yet
to strike gold. The common meaning of words is the Democrats worst enemy. An
“obstruction” of justice must really impede justice, and it is doubtful that
Trump himself put effective barriers in the way of the Mueller investigation,
which was for Democrats a politically disappointing dud.
The following headline recently appeared in a
Hartford paper: “Rep. Rosa DeLauro: ‘a solemn day for our country’
as House passes impeachment resolution.” The resolution will open the hitherto
secret proceeding to public view.
DeLauro, who tends to move in tandem with Pelosi,
initially did not favor impeachment. After the impeachment resolution vote, she
was sufficiently solemn: “’Today is a solemn day for our country,’
said DeLauro, who has served for three decades in Washington. ‘Through
this resolution, the House is continuing its duty to serve as a co-equal branch
of government as enshrined in our Constitution. Our founding fathers gave
Congress the power to legislate and investigate in order to check abuses of
power. Unfortunately, that is what we are facing today.’”
Note the use of the word “unfortunately.” Republicans tend
to titter at pretenses of this sort. Impeachment is not a useful or proper
method of preventing an abuse of power, since, so little deployed, its only
purpose is to remove politicians from office for having committed what some
scholars call “high crimes and misdemeanors.” And it is doubtful that Democrats
are sulking solemnly at the prospect of the humiliation of Trump.
The partisan impeachment attempt cannot be a solemn affair
unless it is a bi-partisan affair.
The open impeachment proceedings involving President Richard
Nixon began properly in the House Judiciary Committee. Partisan Democrats
stumbled awkwardly – but not without purpose – when they moved their
proceedings to the more secretive Intelligence Committee, presided over by Representative
Adam Schiff, a partisan hack and a proven liar, the better to hide the
proceedings from public view for the purpose of producing in secret an impeachment
narrative uncluttered by Republican opposition that may be leaked to the
pro-impeachment media.
Schiff’s solemn proceedings do not at all compare favorably
with The Nixon impeachment, which drew assent from both Democrats and
Republicans. The U.S. House during the Watergate affair produced 5 articles of
impeachment, two of which were rejected. The Democrat-Republican breakdown on
the 3 articles adopted ran as follows: Article 1, obstruction of justice,
27-11; article 2, abuse of power, 28-10; article 3, contempt of Congress,
21-17.
In the wake of public opposition to Star Chamber
deliberations, Schiff is now gearing up for public hearings, but
there are only 16 days left on Congress’s official calendar and just 92 days
until the presidential primaries. The Schiff squeeze will leave
little room for solemnity, or serious deliberation or bi-partisan approval of
whatever articles of impeachment the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee is
likely to pull from his magician’s hat. And under the new dispensation, Schiff
will be able to deny Republican witness testimony. Thus far, there is no
bi-partisan assent on the matter of impeachment, lots of huffing and puffing
among partisan political hacks, and precious little solemnity.
Comments