Now that Donald Trump has become the third president in American history to be impeached, we move onto the Senate, where the likelihood of his acquittal is about as certain as the sun rising in the east tomorrow.
So why did Democrats impeach him if there was zero chance of removing him from office? Because it was the right thing to do. I believe that when the final chapter on this affair is written, those who had the back of this president will be judged harshly; and those who chose country over politics will be viewed as patriots.
I've listened to all the arguments coming from Republicans and, without exception, all of them are pitiful. The sad truth is there isn't one defense they've mounted that passes the smell test in my opinion. Matt Lewis of The Daily Beast has already opined on this, but I thought I’d give it a whirl just for the hell of it.
Defense 1: You can’t impeach a sitting president in his first term. Great, going forward we’ll just tell every presidential candidate who wins the White House that you can do whatever the hell you want in your first term and there’s absolutely nothing anybody can do to stop you. I can’t think of a more idiotic rationalization than this. Can you imagine an employee telling his boss he can’t be fired because he’s been there less than a year? Neither can I.
Defense 2: How can you impeach a president with an economy this good? First of all, how good the economy is doing is irrelevant to whether a president can be removed from office. Secondly, this economy, with the exception of the period directly after the Republican tax bill was passed, has grown at about the same pace it did during the last six years of the Obama Administration. And even that bump lasted only several months and was akin to the rush a diabetic typically gets by drinking a few too many milk shakes. If you’re looking for the best economy the nation has had in the last four decades, you’d have to go back to Bill Clinton’s second term in office in which the economy grew at 3.8 percent and we had three consecutive balanced budgets. And, oh yeah, Republicans impeached Clinton, so there goes that argument.
Defense 3: Trump was genuinely concerned about corruption in Ukraine. Are you shitting me? The only corruption this president is concerned about is the corruption he’s not involved in. If Trump's concern was truly about Ukrainian corruption, why did he bring up the Bidens? Or for that matter the 2016 election? There can be only one logical explanation: Trump was worried about losing the 2020 election and he wanted Ukraine’s help. No other conclusion is possible.
Defense 4: There’s no underlying crime here. One, that’s debatable. I happen to believe he did commit a crime. Two, it’s irrelevant. Impeachment is a political tool that allows Congress to deal with a rogue president. Yes, both Nixon and Clinton committed actual crimes that as private citizens could've landed them behind bars, but as was made abundantly clear in Robert Mueller's report, per that OLC memo, a sitting president can't be indicted. Trump can't have it both ways. Either he's guilty of a crime in which he can be prosecuted or he's not. If it's the latter, the Constitution provides a remedy for Congress. And that's where we stand right now.
Defense 5: Impeaching and removing Trump would invalidate the 2016 election. By that logic, Nixon should've gotten a ticker-tape parade. The idea that the winner of an election is immune from accountability is the argument of every democratically elected despot in the history of the world. Funny how Republicans didn't have any problem invalidating the 1996 election by impeaching Clinton. But then Clinton was a Democrat. Apparently this rule only applies to Republican presidents.
Defense 6: Ukraine got the aid, so what's the big deal? They got the aid only after the whistle blower came forward. If while robbing a bank, you suddenly hear the sirens of the cop cars, you don't get any brownie points for putting the money back. In fact, for your troubles, you get your ass arrested and charged with, yes, bank robbery. Because in the law, it's the intent that counts.
Defense 7: Zalensky said there was no quid pro quo. Right, the president of a country who knows full well that the fate of his people rests in the hands of a man who is literally holding a gun to his head, and we're supposed to take what he says at face value? Let me put it this way: if I got a call from someone who was holding my wife hostage, I'd move heaven and earth to ensure her safe return. So would any reasonably sane person.
Defense 8: Impeachment is politically unpopular and will divide the country. Regarding the latter, it's a little late for that. Thanks to this president, the country is about as polarized as any time since the Civil War. As for the former, it's still too early to predict how this will play out politically. One thing is abundantly clear: a majority of people believe it was wrong for Trump to ask Ukraine for help in the upcoming election. So the "perfect call" line isn't working.
Defense 9: There was no first-hand evidence of what Trump did. You mean the call summary that was released by the White House? The two people who were on the call and who testified as to what they heard? And, oh yes, Trump's own words on the White House lawn? That first-hand evidence? Seriously, from day one this administration decided it wasn't going to cooperate with the inquiry. The State Department refused to turn over thousands of pages of documents that could've shed light on what happened. I can assure you that if there was anything exculpatory in those documents, they would've been handed over in a New York minute. Based on the testimony from those who ignored Trump's orders, however, there was plenty of evidence that what this president did was impeachable.
Defense 10: Trump never got his day in court. Bullshit. This president was given multiple opportunities to call witnesses and even cross examine those witnesses who did appear before the Intelligence Committee, yet chose not to participate. While there's no requirement for a defendant to testify on his behalf or even mount a defense, it is not the prosecutor's job to be his attorney. The truth is Trump brought this on himself.
Defense 11: Democrats will pay a heavy price politically for impeaching Trump. As I mentioned above, it's still too early to predict how this will play out politically, but here's one comforting thought. Prior to Trump, there have been a total of three impeachment inquiries in the nation's history, two of them resulted in actual articles delivered to the Senate - Nixon resigned before the full House voted. In each instance, the sitting president's party lost the White House in the ensuing election. But even if that isn't the case here, it was still the right thing to do.
Defense 12: Democrats wanted to impeach Trump from day one. Now we come to the pièce de résistance: the old "you had it in for our guy from the beginning" defense. For the record, yes, there were House Democrats who wanted to impeach Trump from the moment he was sworn in. Just like there were House Republicans who only days before the 2016 election pledged to introduce articles of impeachment against Hillary Clinton on her first day in office. As they used to say in New York, that and a subway token will get you a ride on the 7th Avenue Express. The fact is that ever since the Clinton impeachment there have been members on both sides of the political aisle who have "had it in" for the opposing party's president. But not until now have we had a president who has so egregiously abused his powers.
What Trump has done here is unprecedented in American politics. He has earned both articles of impeachment that have been brought against him, and history will not soon forget nor forgive the damage he has wrought upon this nation. He is guilty as sin and he should be removed from the office of the presidency.
Comments