Refuting the Bad—and Bad-Faith—Arguments Against Trump’s Impeachment and Conviction.
There are lots of lame excuses, but no valid reasons, for not impeaching and convicting Trump.
Sadly, but perhaps not surprisingly, Congressional Republicans, Trump toadies, and their lapdogs in the media are making excuses for why Trump should not have been impeached and should not be convicted.
None of these arguments are persuasive or compelling, and most do not acknowledge the dangerous, precedent-setting implications of Trump’s actions and failures of action since Nov. 3 and especially since Jan. 6.
Instead, the argument essentially is that Trump should escape impeachment and conviction on legal or procedural technicalities.
Procedural Technicalities. Conservative Republicans historically have opposed letting criminals go free because of legal or procedural technicalities. So it’s surprising and disappointing to see many of them eager to let Trump escape Constitutional censure because of a legal or procedural technicality.
We will take up the objections to Trump’s impeachment and conviction in a series of posts. The first objection is that impeachment was “rushed through” Congress and that Trump, therefore, has been denied due process of law.
As Byron York puts it, the House of Representatives conducted a
quickie impeachment article on Wednesday—dispensing with the hundreds of hours of deliberation and due process that would precede a normal impeachment vote…
But of course, the Constitution does not specify any time requirement or procedural obligations for impeachment.
Moreover, as Matthew Continetti points out, “All the facts are in evidence. They are plain to anyone who can read or watch television.”
Due process or fairness thus did not require a lengthy investigation or fact-finding expedition because the public record already is quite voluminous and well-known. Trump’s tweets, public statements, actions, and inaction are available for all to see, read, and review.
Due process also is a subjective standard that is situationally dependent, and it is more relevant to a Senate trial than a House impeachment. As Andrew C. McCarthy observes:
If we woke up one morning to smoking-gun, undeniable proof that an American president was a spy for a foreign adversary, Congress would have to impeach and remove the president immediately…
No one in his right mind would say, “Let’s leave a foreign spy in the Oval Office for a few more weeks so we can have some hearings and make sure the Senate trial is fair.”
For this reason, the Constitution does not impose any due process standard on impeachment and conviction.
In short, the House of Representatives has handled Trump’s second impeachment fairly and lawfully. Critics who complain about a “rushed impeachment” are either disingenuous or ignorant.
In truth, the House had to act with dispatch and for several reasons:
First, Trump is leaving office Jan. 20, and there is legitimate legal disagreement as to whether a president can be impeached when he is no longer president.
Second, with a new president (Biden) about to take office and other pressing matters (such as the pandemic) to attend to, Congress cannot afford to waste time belaboring impeachment and conviction. Instead, it must act quickly and decisively and move on.
In fact, if anything, the House took too long (a full week) to impeach Trump.
Third, there is the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied. Indeed, Trump’s assault on the Congress, the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law was so blatant and egregious that it demands prompt and immediate redress.
All Americans must know and understand that such flagrant abuses of power will not be tolerated.
Pretending otherwise through weeks or months of haggling and debate over irrelevant legal and procedural technicalities is a disservice to the American people and an abandonment of the Constitution and Constitutional governance.
In our next post, we will consider whether the article of impeachment (incitement of insurrection) warrants Trump’s conviction. Critics contend that Trump did not incite an insurrection. Is this true and does it matter?
Feature photo credit: Joyce N. Boghosian, courtesy of WBNG.
