House Democrats Vote to Block Consideration of Impeachment
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
18 December 17
Led by Pelosi and other usual suspects, Dems unprincipled as ever
On December 6, a majority of Democrats in the House joined all House
Republicans in voting to prevent the House of Representatives from even
debating articles of impeachment against President Trump. The House voted
364-58 (with 10 non-votes) to table impeachment articles (H RES 646)
sponsored by Texas Democrat Al Green. Over the strong objections of
Democratic leaders (an oxymoron), Green had brought his impeachment
resolution to a vote by invoking his personal privilege as a House member.
Green's resolution began:
ARTICLE I
In his capacity as President of the United States, unmindful of the high
duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of
the harmony and courtesies necessary for stability within the society of the
United States, Donald John Trump has with his statements done more than
insult individuals and groups of Americans, he has harmed the society of the
United States, brought shame and dishonor to the office of President of the
United States, sowing discord among the people of the United States by
associating the majesty and dignity of the presidency with causes rooted in
white supremacy, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, white nationalism, or
neo-Nazism on one or more of the following occasions.
There is nothing surprising or false in this observation. The remainder of
Article I lists well-reported occasions when Trump acted as described. There
is no doubt that the events occurred. Article I concludes that: "Donald John
Trump by causing such harm to the society of the United States is unfit to
be President and warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office."
There is no question about what Trump's behavior has been. The argument
would be whether his behavior constitutes an impeachable offense under the
Constitution's Article II, section 4, which provides only that:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,
shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
So what are "other High Crimes and Misdemeanors"? The Constitution does not
say, and no one knows with certainty what the Constitution's framers thought
they were. What it comes down to in any case of impeachment is whether the
president's behavior is serious enough or damaging enough to the good of the
country as a whole that he should be removed from office. Is it enough that
he openly violates his oath of office? Is it enough that he issues orders
illegal on their face? Is it enough that he continues to commit the war
crimes of his predecessors? Is it enough that he trumpets impeachable
offenses on TV? Is it enough that he has flouted the Constitution since
Inauguration Day? Is it enough that he publicly corrupts the legal process?
In any healthy society, the behavior of Donald John Trump would be enough to
provoke serious debate as to whether the country should suffer it any
further.
A majority of Democrats, appearing neither serious nor healthy, have now
gone on record in opposition even to debating Trump's behavior on its
merits. Those Democrats, 128 of them, mostly white-privileged, have voted in
tacit support of the racism, bigotry, and prejudice streaming from the Trump
administration. Led by Nancy Pelosi, these 128 Democrats (including all the
party leadership except James Clyburn) have taken a public pass on
discussing real issues of conscience with national importance. Only 58
Democrats voted with conscience, and the corruption of our system is
expressed by Washington's surprise that there were so many, not so few.
Surprise that there were "only" 128 cowards among Democrats in the House is
well founded. Nancy Pelosi is the same leader who lacked the stomach to try
to impeach George Bush for lying us into a war that the country continues to
pay for in money and blood, albeit mostly other people's blood. In
Pelosi-World, if lying the country into war isn't an impeachable offense,
what is?
And let's be clear here, it's not as if the votes of any of those 128
Democrats were going to make any material difference in the outcome. The
Republican majority in the House was going to table the impeachment
resolution no matter how any of the Democrats voted. The Democrats voting
not to consider articles of impeachment had no practical grounds for doing
so. Each of them put personal politics ahead of any moral reckoning, much
less the desperate need of the country for principled leadership. Each of
them cast a squalid vote not to confront the profoundly destructive behavior
outlined in the impeachment articles, the second (and last) of which began:
ARTICLE II
In his capacity as President of the United States, unmindful of the high
duties of his high office, of the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of
the harmony, and respect necessary for stability within the society of the
United States, Donald John Trump has with his statements done more than
simply insult individuals and groups of Americans, he has harmed the
American society by publicly casting contempt on individuals and groups,
inciting hate and hostility, sowing discord among the people of the United
States, on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender, and sexual
orientation, on one or more of the following occasions .
Again the resolution lists illustrative instances of the offending behavior,
which happened without any doubt.
But 128 Democrats don't want to object, or even to be seen as being willing
to object to Trump behavior. These 128 Democrats prefer to be seen voting
not to discuss outrages even when there is no chance whatsoever that these
outrages will be subject to public debate. They all knew before they voted
that Republicans wouldn't allow it. Yet given an absolutely no-risk
opportunity to object to Trump behavior, 128 Democrats chose instead to vote
as if they have no serious objection to racism-based policy dominating
American government. How can we know that's not exactly true?
Democrats have been fleeing from the impeachment process for months now,
ever since Green first brought out his articles in May. At least six other
House Democrats have filed articles of impeachment against Trump, none of
which have been voted on yet. Five new articles of impeachment were
introduced in mid-November, charging Trump with obstruction of justice,
illegally taking money from foreign entities, illegally taking money from
American entities, undermining the courts in violation of his oath of
office, and undermining public media in violation of the First Amendment -
all producing demonstrable damage to the United States as a constitutional
democracy.
This is all denied by the Democratic leaders, including Pelosi and her
minority whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who said without apparent irony:
Do we disagree with the policies? We do. But disagreeing with the policies
is not enough to overturn an election, a free and fair election.. There are
a large number of Democrats that believe this president ought to be
impeached, we have just a made a judgment that the facts aren't there to
pursue that..
According to Hoyer, 2016 was - unquestionably - a "free and fair election,"
despite evidence that it was anything but, especially the Democratic
primaries. He and Pelosi might well have reason to keep anyone from looking
too closely at any of that. Their personal culpability in a corrupt primary
process involves, at the very least, doing nothing about it. And the
troubles of the Democratic party leadership run much deeper than that, as
lucidly articulated Nomicki Konst, member of the Democratic National
Committee Unity Reform Commission, who wonders why the DNC spent $700,000 on
five "consultants" but didn't have money for yard signs in Michigan and
Wisconsin.
And there's no sense or decency coming from Doug Jones, who was just elected
Senator from Alabama. He says the sexual aggression allegations against
Trump don't much matter now. He dismisses the women who have come forward
recently, he dismisses the movie "16 Women and Donald Trump" recently
released by Brave New Films, and he dismisses calls for Trump's resignation
or impeachment. Senator-elect Jones, a lawyer who probably knows better,
told CNN's Jake Tapper in his pseudo-folksy Alabama manner:
You know, Jake, where I am on that right now is that those allegations were
made before the election. And so people had an opportunity to judge before
that election. I think we need to move on and not get distracted by those
issues. Let's get on with the real issues that are facing the people of this
country right now.
THAT expresses the specious heart of the Democratic Party these days, a
party of dishonesty and denial. Jones must know that the allegations raised
during the election were not fully vetted. Jones must know that the
allegations have expanded and taken on more weight and credibility as
strong, articulate women have come forward to support them. Jones dismisses
issues that matter significantly to more than half the population. And what
does Jones mean by "real issues"? Does he really think a corrupt, bigoted
president threatening nuclear war is not a real issue?
The reality of the Trump presidency is that the president has not spent a
single minute in office when he wasn't committing at least one impeachable
offense. Advised after the election to divest himself of conflicts of
interest, Trump complied in part but continues to profit from foreign and
domestic businesses in clear violation of the Constitution's emoluments
clauses ( Foreign, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8; and Domestic, Article II,
Section 1, Clause 7). In a lawsuit pending since June, almost 200 House and
Senate Democrats have sued Trump to enforce the emoluments clauses. On
Inauguration Day 2017, attorney John Bonifaz of Free Speech for People
started an impeachment campaign based on the emoluments clauses. In his
view, impeachment can and should proceed as a civil action parallel to the
criminal action headed by special counsel Robert Mueller. On Democracy NOW
December 15, Bonifaz spoke of the difference between criminal and civil
procedures:
The question here are crimes against the state. That is what impeachment is
about - abuse of power, abuse of public trust, and not only through the
violations of the anti-corruption provisions. There is now, of course,
evidence of obstruction of justice. There's evidence of potential conspiracy
with the Russian government to interfere with the 2016 elections and violate
federal campaign finance laws, among others. There is now evidence of abuse
of the pardon power in the pardoning of former Maricopa County Arizona
Sheriff Joe Arpaio. There's recklessly threatening nuclear war against a
foreign nation. There's misuse of the Justice Department to try to prosecute
political adversaries. And there's the giving aid and comfort to neo-Nazis
and white supremacists. All of this-all of this deserves an impeachment
investigation in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Realistically, no impeachment proceeding can go forward without some
Republicans, an unlikely development before the 2018 elections. The
Democrats in charge seem to have the same blind assumption of winning that
they had in 2016, which is hardly reassuring. Waiting for that "certain"
victory, those Democrats are content to subject the country to another year
of unchecked Trump behavior, with no Plan B should Democrats fail to take
the House. Meanwhile, Democratic shucking and jiving does nothing to bring
Republicans face to face with their own monstrosities. Democratic dishonesty
at the top seems to know no shame, as Pelosi said with counter-factual
fatuity:
If you're going to go down the impeachment path, you have to know you can do
it not in a partisan way... We have an investigation in the Justice
Department that is seeking facts. We don't want it to look political.. [My
goal is] for our country is to come together to win the next election.
Impeachment is inherently partisan, with the possibility of being bipartisan
in part. In reality, "not partisan" is a lie or a delusion. The Mueller
investigation is a criminal investigation that may or may not lead directly
to indicting a sitting president. It cannot lead directly to impeachment and
removal from office. It might lead there indirectly, but that's a long
process that took three years with Nixon. The goal of the country coming
together is a fantasy, and winning the next election is purely partisan -
what Pelosi says is obscurantist garbage, but that seems to be the best
Democratic leaders can give us these days.
Note: listed below are the 58 House Democrats who voted to proceed to
consider Rep. Green's two articles of impeachment. If your Representative is
not among them, you might ask him or her why. If we're to have a Democratic
wave election in 2018, it might as well be one worth having.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV,
print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont
judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination
from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
