Opinions
February 13, 2020
The Merionite
He’s in the right
Ike Mittman ’22 Source Confirmation Editor Only three times has this happened in the history of the United States. Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and now Donald Trump are the only presidents to ever be impeached. Both Johnson and Clinton were eventually acquitted by the Senate, and if not much changes, the same will most likely occur for Trump. What makes this different is that it was the first fully partisan impeachment case: only two Democrats voted against and no Republicans voted for both articles of impeachment. Many Democrats have been calling for his impeachment from the day he took office. For example, Maxine Waters, a high ranking Democrat, vowed to stop at nothing to impeach Trump. Democrats have been actively pursuing a case for impeachment as a means of removing Trump from office. Impeachment should not be the desired outcome of an investigation, instead, it should be weighed as punishment for a crime. Regardless, the crimes that Trump has been charged with are not sufficiently proven to justify removal from office. When the partisan nature of this impeachment, the abuse of power, and the misapplication of law are all noted, the case against Trump is effectively nullified. Unlike every previous impeachment, the vote was almost entirely partisan. Two Democrats voted against Article I of Abuse of Power, and three voted against Article II of Obstruction of Congress. By contrast, the number of votes against an article in Bill Clinton’s impeachment was upwards of 81 Republicans for Article IV. In addition, Clinton was also acquitted by ten Republicans in the Senate. There were votes from both Republicans and Democrats in favor of and against impeachment. A minacious partisan impeachment vote allows a party to simply remove a president they disagree with. Now, this does not invalidate their Articles of Impeachment necessarily, but it does cast serious doubts on the intentions of House Democrats. The call for impeachment from Democrats is not new. Trump has been accused of collusion with the Russians even before he was elected, which was based on speculation and resulted in no definitive answers. Many of the faces of the Democratic party presented little reasoning why besides the fact that they simply did not like him. They have made outrageous claims such as collusion, witness intimidation, and obstruction of justice. But no actual evidence has been used to support these cries. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made it a campaign issue to impeach Trump in a district where Trump
is highly unpopular, neglecting the fundamental aspect of supplying a proven example of a “high crime or misdemeanor.” Impeachment has simply become a Democratic talking point, and could lead to an abuse of power not by Trump, but by the Democrats. While one may wish to point out these arguments as nothing more than speculation, the fact of the matter is that the charges brought against Trump have not yet been proven. Article I claims that Trump abused the power of office by withholding aid from the Ukrainians if they did not investigate potential presidential contender Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. This may seem plausible, but whether or not there was intent is still unknown. One can (as do I) strongly feel that Trump wished to bring down an opponent rather than simply fight corruption, but without evidence “beyond an unreasonable doubt,” there is no way to come to such a legal conclusion. Article II, Obstruction of Congress, is a different story. It states that “President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and offi-
cials not to comply [with subpoenas].” Put simply, a subpoena is an order to go to court. However, Trump has the right to have a subpoena challenged. Trump does not have to comply with a subpoena if he wishes to have it challenged. Only after having his case heard by the courts does he have to comply, and thus Article II is falsely applied. When the whole picture is looked at, a full argument against Trump cannot be constructed. This does not mean that he is entirely innocent, and neither does this protect him from further investigations. What this does mean is that there is no certainty “beyond an unreasonable doubt.” The concept of innocent before proven guilty is at stake here. If the highest office in this country is subjected to an improper legal system, then every individual may have one of their most basic rights—presumed innocence—stripped away.
guided towards the direction the herder wants. They do not support the impeachment out of of reason but rather just for the sake of agreeing or spiting President Trump. Also, President Trump’s approval ratings have gone up from 34 percent on November 20, 2019, to 53 percent of people who apJonathan Sommer ’21 prove on January 22, 2020, Opinions Editor according to the Rasmussen Reports. Thus, the trial may be counterproductive for the Have you ever encountered Democrats, and may show the an item or service was too people the logical fallacies in expensive but subsequently their argument, expanding proceeded to buy it? This scePresident Trump’s support. nario should seem familiar to We have lost an exorbitant Democrats for they have spent amount of money to this trial so hundreds of million dollars to far. Senators and congressmen try to prove that they are right. on average make $174,000 per Like children in a playground year. That equates to $476.71 squabble, they refuse to relent per day per representative. Afuntil their viewpoint is ruled ter three days of the trial and to be just. Furthermore, the the pay for all one hundred senators and congressmen senators was $143,013.70. One who agree with the impeachcan feed a person for only sevment of President Donald J. en dollars every day according Trump aren’t even doing so to the USDA food budget, so this equates to 20,431 people that could have been fed had the Democrats chosen not to pursue this trial. Additionally, the Mueller report cost 3.06 million dollars which equates to 437,143 people that could have been fed. The cost for the impeachment process has not been published yet but I predictthat it will cost us close to ten million dollars. This cost does not include the time wasted watching and waiting for the results from this trial. Further, once the impeachment inquiry was in the House of Representatives, for 38 with 435 representatives. That equaled $7,880,016.30, meaning 1,125,716 people that could have been fed for a day. All in all, we could have fed 1,583,291 deserving people food for a day, but the liberals would rather put one man in a bad spot light. Graphic by Chris de Santis ’20/Staff Due to their selfish actions, people are still dying, under valid motivations, but starving, and freezing. The ento follow the other Democrats tire impeachment process is a blindly. They are following waste of money and time, thus, the ones that they believe to should never have happened. ‘right’, but not making sure The Democrats have burned their opinions are factual or through several million dollogical. Yet somehow they lars of our cash to in a feeble get reelected every election. attempt to demonstrate that American’s interest in the they are correct. The most tertrial decreased after the 1st rible part is that our represenday. According to the Inteltatives and congressmen who ligencer, “A dip to 20 perconcur with the reprimand of cent in daytime viewership Donald J Trump aren’t in any may be the best indicator event doing it to support their that Trump’s impeachment prospects: most follow differis not a concern to many.” ent dissidents lacking indiThough many people were vidual thought. The liberals in support of the impeachare neither kind nor selfless, ment, little cared enough to but are mean and selfish peoeven watch the second day ple who are attacking a man of trial. Most of the Demoon no defensible grounds. crats are like sheep, easily
7
