We need impeachment hearings

by | Apr 22, 2019 | Editor's Blog

I have not been one of those beating the drum for impeachment since Trump took office. In fact, I’ve felt those demands did more harm than good. They were just more hyperbolic noise in the political echo chamber that allowed real problems to be dismissed as partisan rhetoric. The Mueller report has changed my mind. After reading much of the report, I think the American people need to hear what Donald Trump and his cronies did in a Congressional setting. 

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think the Mueller Report vindicates those people shouting “Impeach!” for the past two years. I think it shows how much they’ve cheapened what should be a very serious and solemn process. Now, we’ve got to convince the American public that the call for impeachment is not just political rhetoric but a national necessity. 

Despite the cry of “No collusion!” coming from the president’s twitter feed and those of his lackeys, the report clearly states that Trump and his campaign not only knew that Russians were interfering in our election, they were cheering them on. Mueller lays out that case clearly.

“As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents.The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

While the Trump campaign wasn’t acting in concert with the Russians, the campaign clearly knew what the Russians were doing and believed it would benefit their effort. They could have gone to the FBI, but they chose to stay silent. In other words, they ignored illegal activity because they thought it would benefit them.

Had the Trump campaign been actively assisting the Russian effort to undermine our election, the charge wouldn’t have been “collusion,” it would have been treason. Mueller clearly explains his understanding of collusion. “Like collusion, ‘coordination’ does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.” 

Treason is a legal term while collusion is not.  It’s defined in the US code as, “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” Clearly, had the Trump campaign been giving information or coordinating activities with the Russians they would have been giving the “aid and comfort within the United States.”

Even if the allegations of collusion didn’t add up to criminal charges, Mueller clearly believed the administration interfered with his investigation. He just believed Congress needs to make the determination of how to proceed. He stated clearly, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. We are unable to reach that judgment.” He didn’t say he couldn’t find evidence that Trump obstructed justice; he said that he couldn’t find evidence that he DIDN’T obstruct justice. He goes on to lay out a damning case of a president trying to derail the investigation. The rest of us watched it play out over twitter. 

Democrats fear that impeachment hearings will distract from their chances of taking back the presidency in 2020 and be perceived as Congressional overreach. That may turn out to be true, but the allegations in the report should transcend electoral politics. The American people need to hear findings of the report in a format not filtered through cable news or distorted by the president’s twitter feed. We need to decide as a country if we are okay with a president who obstructs an investigation into potential criminal activity and who turns a blind eye to foreign attacks on our political system. 

If, as the president claims, much of the report is false, he needs the opportunity to rebut it in a formal setting, not on twitter. However, if a hearing shows that the findings are true, we also need to know which of our elected officials will stand with Russia over the United States and who will excuse a chief executive who behaves like the one described in the report. If the Mueller Report’s findings are true and Trump remains as president, we’ve redefined what we expect of our leaders. In the end, the hearing will tell us as much about who we are today as a country as it tells us about Donald Trump. It’s something we might not want to hear. 

0 Comments

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!