Impeachment: Judging Trump or the Rejection of Cynicism
Published in Le Monde
(France) on 19 December 2019
by Le Monde (link to original)
(France) on 19 December 2019
by Le Monde (link to original)
Translated from
by Hal Swindall.
Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
The impeachment process launched against the American president is bound to end in failure. Yet in choosing to do it anyway, the Democrats are being faithful to the oath taken by all elected officials to uphold and defend the Constitution.
On Wednesday Dec. 18, Donald Trump was assured of a place in history as the third United States president to be impeached. Only Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 have answered to Congress for their actions, Richard Nixon having opted to resign rather than submit to such an indignity.
The Republican billionaire is accused of abuse of power for trying to involve the Ukrainian president in his 2020 reelection campaign. Pressure was put on certain Ukrainian military officers to open an investigation into the son of one of Trump's main rivals, former Vice President Joe Biden.
Given the fact they lack a majority in the Senate, the Democrats have known from the beginning that Trump has a very high chance of being acquitted. There lies their dilemma: they could either turn a blind eye to the matter, or they could bring it to light for history's sake.
The seriousness of the accusations against Trump, that he abused his power for personal gain, make the Republicans' 1998 accusations against Clinton – that he committed perjury to cover up an extramarital affair – laughable by comparison. The obstruction strategy carried out by the White House has, however, prevented the Democrats from obtaining testimony from people close to Trump who could have established his attempt at blackmail beyond a doubt.
The ‘5th Avenue Theory’
The House of Representatives decided it had nothing to gain from engaging in a prolonged judicial guerrilla war to obtain testimony from Trump's right-hand man, Mick Mulvaney, or from National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was dismissed in September. House Democrats chose a forced march that inevitably resulted in a less convincing body of evidence. Thus, they have had to content themselves with a slim bundle of information obtained from diplomats and advisers who chose to share what they knew of the truth.
The first option, that of looking the other way, was obviously the easiest. That would have allowed House Democrats to avoid the effort of an already losing battle, sparing themselves the animosity of a president who tolerates no challengers. Such a cynical choice would have been consistent with the prevailing attitude of the White House, and would have confirmed Trump's personal "Fifth Avenue Theory" by which he asserts that he could randomly shoot someone on the famous New York City thoroughfare without losing a single voter.
Yet, House Democrats opted for the second choice, that of charging the president with conduct forbidden by the Constitution, thereby fulfilling their oaths as elected officials to uphold and defend the cornerstone of American democracy. As validation of the Democrats’ priorities, they were overwhelmingly elected to the House in the November 2018 midterm elections from districts that had gone to Trump two years earlier, but whose voters now favored ethics over electoral calculations.
The Democrats themselves are certainly not above reproach. Influenced by Trump’s aggressive behavior, some of them have increased their criticism of him, which now feeds Republican claims that the impeachment procedure is motivated by personal hatred.
The Democrats’ rejection of Trump's cynicism is to their credit, though. On Nov. 3, 2020, this resistance will allow voters to make informed decisions, even if at this moment, opinion about impeachment is deeply divided.
On Wednesday Dec. 18, Donald Trump was assured of a place in history as the third United States president to be impeached. Only Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 have answered to Congress for their actions, Richard Nixon having opted to resign rather than submit to such an indignity.
The Republican billionaire is accused of abuse of power for trying to involve the Ukrainian president in his 2020 reelection campaign. Pressure was put on certain Ukrainian military officers to open an investigation into the son of one of Trump's main rivals, former Vice President Joe Biden.
Given the fact they lack a majority in the Senate, the Democrats have known from the beginning that Trump has a very high chance of being acquitted. There lies their dilemma: they could either turn a blind eye to the matter, or they could bring it to light for history's sake.
The seriousness of the accusations against Trump, that he abused his power for personal gain, make the Republicans' 1998 accusations against Clinton – that he committed perjury to cover up an extramarital affair – laughable by comparison. The obstruction strategy carried out by the White House has, however, prevented the Democrats from obtaining testimony from people close to Trump who could have established his attempt at blackmail beyond a doubt.
The ‘5th Avenue Theory’
The House of Representatives decided it had nothing to gain from engaging in a prolonged judicial guerrilla war to obtain testimony from Trump's right-hand man, Mick Mulvaney, or from National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was dismissed in September. House Democrats chose a forced march that inevitably resulted in a less convincing body of evidence. Thus, they have had to content themselves with a slim bundle of information obtained from diplomats and advisers who chose to share what they knew of the truth.
The first option, that of looking the other way, was obviously the easiest. That would have allowed House Democrats to avoid the effort of an already losing battle, sparing themselves the animosity of a president who tolerates no challengers. Such a cynical choice would have been consistent with the prevailing attitude of the White House, and would have confirmed Trump's personal "Fifth Avenue Theory" by which he asserts that he could randomly shoot someone on the famous New York City thoroughfare without losing a single voter.
Yet, House Democrats opted for the second choice, that of charging the president with conduct forbidden by the Constitution, thereby fulfilling their oaths as elected officials to uphold and defend the cornerstone of American democracy. As validation of the Democrats’ priorities, they were overwhelmingly elected to the House in the November 2018 midterm elections from districts that had gone to Trump two years earlier, but whose voters now favored ethics over electoral calculations.
The Democrats themselves are certainly not above reproach. Influenced by Trump’s aggressive behavior, some of them have increased their criticism of him, which now feeds Republican claims that the impeachment procedure is motivated by personal hatred.
The Democrats’ rejection of Trump's cynicism is to their credit, though. On Nov. 3, 2020, this resistance will allow voters to make informed decisions, even if at this moment, opinion about impeachment is deeply divided.
Previous article![]( "The Big Losers in Impeachment? The Democrats")
Next article![]( "An Alliance of the Uncooperative: How NATO Went Through Its Anniversary Summit")