The Solemnity of Impeachment In Connecticut

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.