Inquiry will set precedent

Congress must put facts above partisanship during inquiry, potential impeachment

Eric Boose / Opinion Editor / The USD Vista

We have reached a critical point in American political discourse. The country is arguably more polarized now than it was during the Civil War, and the current administration may be the most controversial the country has ever seen. As if that was not enough, we are now set to embark on one of the most potentially divisive political processes — the impeachment of a sitting president. 

It should be clear, Congress has not introduced articles of impeachment, which would formally begin the process. However, the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry on Sept. 24, meaning the House of Representatives will officially investigate “what, if any, ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ Trump may have committed,” in allegedly asking the president of Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, according to The Washington Post. If the House, where Democrats hold a majority, finds evidence they deem sufficient to impeach, they will then draft articles of impeachment.

Naturally, President Donald Trump reacted to Pelosi’s announcement of the inquiry with a typical Twitter tantrum, concluding with a tweet which read “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” On Saturday, Trump called multiple prominent House Democrats, including Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff and Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, “savages” on Twitter. Generally, the Trump administration and many of its strong supporters in Congress have called the impeachment inquiry nothing more than a partisan attack. 

Obviously, the inquiry is not entirely nonpartisan. So many Congressional Republicans have shown such loyalty to Trump that they would have surely chosen a different course of action, had they been in control of the House. However, there is also a compelling argument that a serious inquiry into Trump’s dealings with Ukraine is in the best interest of both parties. 

Hypothetically, if an authoritarian leader in some foreign country asked the leader of another country to investigate a political rival, we would surely call that an abuse of power, and certainly we would be glad that such a thing would never happen in the land of the free. Now, that hypothetical may just be unfolding in our own backyard. It is time to decide if there are things we would criticize in other countries that we would turn a blind eye to at home. 

Beyond that decision, there is a greater purpose of this inquiry, and any impeachment process which follows, can serve: defining (or re-defining) the limits of what a president can and cannot do. Already, this impeachment inquiry is drawing comparisons to the three previous incidents of impeachment inquiries and impeachment. Admittedly, those comparisons are less so with Andrew Johnson and more to do with Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. The bottom line is that this proceeding, however it ends, will not get tucked away in a shadowy corner of American history. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle should treat this like it will set a precedent for future proceedings. 

With the eyes of the country watching them, Congress cannot afford to let this impeachment inquiry become a partisan issue. On Saturday, Mark Amodei of Nevada became the first Republican in the House to publicly support the impeachment inquiry, saying, “I’m a big fan of oversight, so let’s let the committees get to work and see where it goes.” Other Congressional Republicans have shown interest in getting more facts about Trump’s dealing with Ukraine, including John Curtis of Utah, who said he had the “utmost confidence in the investigative tools Congress has at its disposal.” Last Tuesday, the Senate voted unanimously, 100-0, in favor of calling on the Trump administration to release a whistleblower complaint which allegedly pertains to Trump’s involvement with Ukraine.

With lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in both chambers of Congress interested in getting more facts about the Ukraine issue, that is what this impeachment inquiry must focus on — purely the facts. Democrats must resist the urge to take partisan pot-shots at Trump and at Republicans. At the same time, Republicans must be open to examining any information the inquiry turns up, no matter how damaging it may be to their party. 

Ultimately, we can hope that our country will not find itself in a similar situation any time in the future. However, if we do find ourselves at the doorstep of another impeachment proceeding, we will look back on this one, just like we look back on Clinton, Nixon, and even Andrew Johnson. This inquiry, like the others before it, will establish (or re-establish) boundaries for what a sitting president can and cannot do. This inquiry, and any proceedings which may follow it, will be a test of lawmakers’ ability to put partisanship aside. 

However it acts, Congress will be setting an example. They should do everything in their power to set a good one, to live up to the political cliché and truly put country above party.