Impeachment Guide opposing viewpoints

With the facts in hand, I looked into the stances of local U.S. House Representative Jack Bergman (R) and U.S. Senators Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters (D). Stabenow supports impeachment on the Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power charges, and will most likely vote to remove the president. Senator Peters is also likely to vote to remove, but he may be swayed due to the fact that he is currently seeking reelection. Republican Michigan First District Representative Jack Bergman voted against impeachment. On November 25th, a statement released by Bergman’s official twitter account included the following: “It’s becoming increasingly apparent that these efforts are nothing short of a politically motivated scam, to bring down the duly-elected President of the United States.” Bergman would later state that the hearings were stalling important bipartisan work. Representative Bergman seems to be treating this serious event as if there were no evidence and no danger. This simply is not the case. The president’s actions represent downright dangerous foreign policy. A key damning action was the leverage of military aid over Ukraine. Republicans have argued that the administration did eventually release the aid, but they ignore the fact that aid was only released after initial reports of the call. It may seem like this could never affect the average Central student, but these actions can have dangerous consequences for global stability. After the conclusion of the Cold War, Ukraine voluntarily gave up the nuclear weapons within its borders from the USSR. They did so because they were confident they had backing from the US to deter any future Russian aggression. Since then, Russia has annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and backed Russian Nationalists in Eastern Ukraine in the hopes of annexing even more Ukrainian territory. U.S. military aid was, and still is, key in resisting this Russian invasion. President Trump knew this aid was essential to Ukraine’s existence. When President Trump used this pressure, he sent a signal to Ukraine that if they want to keep existing as a nation, they better throw something in it for him, personally. From our allies’ perspectives, these practices are disturbing. They see that they are at the whim of U.S. politics, which leads to a long list of “what ifs.” What if they cannot appease our leaders, or what if they choose not to bribe our leaders into protecting them? What if they come to the realization that they cannot rely on the U.S.? What if Countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Ukraine decide they need their own defensive capabilities? Japan alone has the capability to construct nuclear weapons within six months. A possibility that seems all the more ominous in light of the fact that across the Sea of Japan are three hostile nuclear powers in China, North Korea, and Russia. Thus, self-interested U.S. leaderby: HENRY HUSCHKE staff writer

ship could, arguably, lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the globe. This world would be extremely dangerous as proliferation would exponentially increase the odds of nuclear war, accidents, and terrorism. Events that could spell the end for humanity. Although the reality and the magnitude of nuclear war is unfathomable, identifying and preventing the possible catalysts should be at the forefront of our minds. Should we accept leadership which steers us in this direction? Even if it is just by an inch, it’s an inch closer to doomsday, and allowing that to occur is not an option. The effects of corrupt foreign policy are just one part of President Trump’s actions that warrant impeachment and removal from office. He also refused to comply with congressional subpoenas. Congress has the power to subpoena as a part of the carefully crafted checks and balances built into the Constitution. If the Senate does not send a clear message that the executive branch cannot refuse to comply with an investigation, they will grant future executives unprecedented power. Power that will allow any future executive to control any investiga tion into their administration. This ruling would make congressional checks on the president obsolete. The president could commit any number of crimes and conceal their actions from any investigation attempt. The United States could essentially become a quasidictatorship. This is, perhaps extreme, but the move in that direction is undeniable. Even if the President allows witnesses he has heretofore forbidden to answer subpoenas from the House testify before the Senate, he will have already stalled the proceedings long enough to cast significant doubt on the facts, making an accurate drafting of articles of impeachment nearly impossible in the first place. This act would also violate the constitutional provision that the House has the sole power to investigate impeachment by giving the discovery power to the Senate during the trial. Discovery is the process of gathering the facts and evidence before a case. As the American Bar Association says, “Discovery enables the parties to know before the trial begins what evidence may be presented. It’s designed to prevent “trial by ambush,” where one side doesn’t learn of the other side’s evidence or witnesses until the trial, when there’s no time to obtain answering evidence.” In order to have a fair legal proceedings, the process of obtaining evidence before the trial in the House must be maintained. I implore all age 18 and older Central students to register to vote. Our country needs an informed electorate and the voices of our generation. Our ideals are important, and together we can urge enforcement of standards that will maintain global stability and preserve the foundation of our government. // O P I N I O N

Donald John Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States on November 8th, 2016 with a victory in the electoral college. Trump is hated by some, disliked by others, and praised by Republicans. He has become the most powerful man on the planet as the result of the never ending political pendulum. President Obama was much more progressive than American Conservatives cared for. Thus, a candidate never seen before in American politics came to light in 2016. Ever since his election, Trump has done and said things never said or done by any President of the United States. After constant back and forth between Trump and Democrats the last three years, Democrats have now unjustly impeached the president. Several months ago, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was quoted by Fox News stating that impeachment would have to be largely bipartisan. Well, after a historic vote in the House, the only thing bipartisan about the vote was a few Democrats who voted against impeachment. Hypocrisy, as it does with most politicians, runs rampant through Pelosi’s record. During President Clinton’s impeachment more than 20 years ago, she was against impeaching Clinton for a lack of wrongdoing—even though he lied twice under oath and had an affair in the White House. Whereas Trump now, has done nothing impeachable. The original grounds for impeachment were manu factured under the premise that there was a quid pro quo made by President Trump. In a July call, President Trump, in no threatening manner, asked the President of Ukraine to look into the possibility of corruption between Hunter Biden and the Ukrainian Oil company, Burisma. In the House Intelligence hearings several weeks ago, the star witness for the Democrats was the U.S ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland. Sondland was supposed to clarify if there was indeed an exchange, but he only muddied the water. In his opening remarks, laid out by the NPR article “Gordon Sondland... Opening Statements,” he stated: “[Members ask] Was there a ‘quid pro quo’? ... the answer is yes.” But, in complete contradiction and quoted from CBS, Sondland also recalled that Trump told him, via a phone call, that he wanted nothing, “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.” So the question arises, where was this supposed quid pro quo? An interesting video from an NPR article shows former Vice President Biden boasting about threatening the former President of Ukraine during President Obama’s second term. Telling the former president to fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was freezing Burisma’s assets, or lose one billion dollars in loans: “I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money… Well, son of a by: RYAN ROYSTON staff writer

bitch. He got fired.” This seems very, very similar to what Trump is currently being accused of, but with Trump’s supposed quid pro quo, we do not have a video of him admitting his actions. Yet, there is media silence in pointing out the hypocrisy. Ever since Trump’s election, as brought up by nu merous Fox News television hosts, members of the House have attempted to impeach and remove Trump many times. The several attempts to impeach the president prior to December are seen as purely political, as no crime before, or now, mind you, was committed. This is even reflected in the vote that impeached Trump recently, as there was zero bipartisan support for the two impeachment articles. To many Republicans, myself included, this seems to be a desperate grab at overturning the 2016 election and an attempt at defeating Trump early in 2020, as momentum gains for the president on the back of the greatest economy in United States history. In another historic action, the recent impeachment hearings and votes have all occurred in record timing. Nixon’s impeachment investigation, that happened prior to his resignation, was held throughout nearly 14 months. The Democrats have impeached a duly elected official in less than 13 weeks. With a historically short impeachment process, no true premise to base articles of impeachment off of, and an entirely partisan vote, Democrats have now set a precedent for future presidents to be impeached for extremely minor offenses. Or, in Trump’s case, no offense at all. Trump is only the third president to ever be impeached. But, to remove Trump from office, Democrats would have to persuade a Republican controlled Senate to vote for removal with a 2/3 majority. Although extremely unlikely, a 2/3 majority would make Trump the first president in the history of our nation to be removed from office. With that being said, this impeachment has only caused Americans to become more divided, and both parties are at fault. Although I feel strongly in the fact that Trump should not have been impeached, for there was no quid pro quo and and zero bipartisan support, I cannot help but respect others’ opinions. Whatever happens, you and I will continue to do excessive amounts of homework, worry about upcoming standardized tests, and spend absurd amounts of time on our phones. You and I will continue to laugh, think, and converse just as we had before. Even with a decrease in morality, ethics, and infringement upon freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution, you and I will continue to live in, what I believe, is the greatest country to ever grace the Earth. In the meantime, we all will sit unmoving, waiting for officials we elected to represent us make decisions none of us have much say in. //