Check (and balances), please

The impeachment trial of President Trump is showing the holes in our democracy

Baylynne Brunetti / Contributor / The USD Vista

On Jan. 15, 2020 the U.S. House of Representatives sent articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate to start the senate trial for President Donald Trump. In the sunshine of San Diego, it can be hard to care about the cold world of Washington, D.C. and those in it. It is even harder to get students who already dislike politics politically involved in this impeachment. The allegations against Trump are detrimental to our democracy and have placed our system of checks and balances into the limelight. No matter our side of the party aisle, we should have our eyes glued to what is going on because this impeachment could easily become the largest political issue of this decade. These violations of presidential power have plagued the executive office. 

When we look at the impeachment of President Clinton, we see some partisan lines being drawn in the sand, but we also see a pledge to a fair trial in the senate. In December 1998, regarding the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, the Republican house failed to approve the proposed impeachment regarding “abuse of power” by a large margin, 285-148. Furthermore, the partisan Republican house also rejected a finding of lying under oath by President Clinton, even during the civil deposition of Paula Jones — by a 229-205 vote. 

Although there were divisions during the Clinton impeachment trial, the Republicans still displayed integrity in the manner with which they handled the impeachment process. This is not to say that party lines did not exist, but it does say something about the integrity that used to be a core tenant of political office. Regardless, some Republicans in the current senate show a strange loyalty to President Trump. There is no straightforward rationale for the extreme allegiance to President Trump by Republicans, but a rational argument could be made that it comes down to identity politics. At this moment in time, the Republicans care more about keeping a Republican in office and maintaining power, than they care about impeaching a president who has for all intents and purposes, abused the executive office. The nature of the conduct of President Trump is unprecedented in our government’s history. 

These are not petty allegations surrounding the morality of the President such as we saw with President Bill Clinton. Trump allegedly abused his presidential power and violated his oath of office by asking the head of a foreign power for favors during his July 25, 2019 telephone conversation with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. This conversation put Trump’s personal political interests first and not the country. 

To begin with, Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Democrats working with Ukraine to help Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. Secondly, Trump asked President Zelensky for a favor. This favor was essentially to investigate Vice President Joe Biden, his political rival and his son, Hunter Biden. It is a fact that both of those specific requests followed virtually immediately after Mr. Zelensky asked Mr. Trump for military aid to help Ukraine defend against Russian aggression in the East. 

First, let us go over what an impeachable offense entails. According to the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 4, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Allegedly withholding funds from another country for information surrounding a political opponent certainly should qualify under high crimes and misdemeanors, no matter what side of the aisle you find yourself resonating with. 

President Trump refused to comply with duly authorized subpoenas for documents and testimony from Congress. In a court, this would qualify as obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is defined as an act that corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.

The act of evading an investigation by Congress defeats the purpose of the impeachment clause. The impeachment clause was put in by the framers to create checks and balances to ensure we did not have to put up with a dictatorial, lawless president. Trump ordered members of his cabinet and others illegally to defy congressional subpoenas, including those subpoenas not subject to a federal court challenge. Witnesses can refuse to comply with a congressional subpoena only if they have a valid privilege protecting their testimony. Since there were no stated reasons for why there should be blocked testimony, this falls under obstruction of justice.

In a sharp contrast, during his 1998 impeachment trial, President Clinton voluntarily submitted documents to Congress and appeared before a grand jury to testify. This is the manner in which a president should act when it comes to transparency. Citizens should wonder, what is the Trump administration hiding? This lack of transparency has this country pondering, how do we keep the government from evading constitutional checks and balances?

As of Jan. 31, the senate has voted to block testimony from witnesses surrounding the impeachment. This should no longer be seen as a partisan issue. Every single person should care that testimony is not being allowed into these proceedings. If there is not any evidence of these high crimes and misdemeanors, what could there be to hide? We should care that we are dealing with obstruction of justice in the highest levels of our government. Accountability in government through checks and balances is something that makes our democracy great. If we do not do our due diligence to live up to that standard, our democracy will soon reach its demise. Both parties should be on the right side of history as we work to make sure this is a fair trial, setting a precedent for the upcoming century of American politics.