Congress circled the issue for many months before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided the time had come for a formal impeachment inquiry into what she cited as serious violation of the Constitution by President Trump. Pelosi’s decision ignited a fast-moving firestorm based on reports that the U.S. president had sought help from Ukraine’s president.
Indeed, a memorandum detailing Trump’s role surfaced and indicated that Trump had pressured the Ukranian leader to investigate rumors of corruption involving leading political opponents of Trump, notably Joe Biden, a front-runner in the competition for the Democratic presidential nomination — and possibly Trump’s opponent in next year’s election.
Even if there is Democratic solidarity in favoring the impeachment inquiry, there are many hurdles to be cleared, and little evidence thus far of backing from Republicans. And some Democrats continue to urge a cautious approach. However, for those in Congress and the public who see an impeachment investigation as a rush to judgment, focusing particularly on the whistle-blower, it is important to note that what’s being considered involves a lengthy catalog of actions, statements and policies in addition to the pressuring of a foreign leader to interfere in American presidential politics.
Speaker Pelosi’s decision to launch an inquiry into President Trump’s actions doesn’t come in a vacuum. It comes after two years in which Pelosi has been pushed by many of her colleagues to support such an inquiry.
Many Republicans have stayed on the sidelines, though often implicitly supporting Trump. Some of the president’s strong supporters, such as Fox commentator Sean Hannity, have raised an alarm. He says Democrats have declared war. “If they keep this up they’ll lose badly in 2020. This is from a party that does not dare about truth,” Hannity said, adding that “facts, fairness, none of that matters” to Democrats.
Some see Trump almost daring congressional Democrats to act on impeachment, confident that it will backfire. And, almost certainly, there will be unforeseen twists and turns in the road ahead. The role of the president’s rogue “personal lawyer,” Rudy Giuliani, brings up all sorts of questions.
This is undeniably a time of searing politics in what has become a deeply divided nation. Facts and truth have validity and weight. But these are qualities that are elusive at times, and open-mindedness is scarce.
The reality is that without broader and bipartisan support, decisive and definitive action on impeachment is unlikely. We are hearing comparisons to Watergate and the Nixon resignation, knowing that there was eventually broad support against him. The evidence unfolded in the Watergate hearings by a bipartisan Senate Select Committee led by Sam Ervin, Democrat from North Carolina, and Howard Baker, Republican from Tennessee. At that time, in 1973-74, as a Senate staff member, I had an office just down the hall from the Senate caucus hearing room and was able to watch many of the most memorable Watergate moments as they occurred.
Those Watergate hearings were, of course, widely televised and the American public paid serious attention in coming to understand that Richard Nixon and some of his associates had engaged in abuse of power, including cover-up efforts, undermining the Constitution. It was a highly significant lesson in American history, a high point in Congress exercising its proper governmental oversight role.
In addition to the issues raised by the whistle-blower and the Ukraine scandal, Trump has repeatedly challenged the norms and parameters of American public affairs.
Can the Democrats and Trump critics convince the public that his actions constitute an abuse of power?
The all-Republican Arkansas congressional delegation, initially at least, has remained solidly supportive of the embattled president. Interestingly, however, Gov. Asa Hutchinson, whose GOP credentials are certainly in order, says Congress should carefully examine the claims against Trump. “The facts have to be developed,” Hutchinson said. “The allegations raised should be taken seriously.”
Is it really the showdown, the turning point, the crossing of the Rubicon, the moment of truth, as some have proclaimed?
It certainly appears Trump has put personal political interests ahead of national security. And one might think that, in the aftermath of the Russian intervention in our 2016 elections, there would be hesitation about inviting and encouraging foreign involvement in our politics and democratic processes.
It is Congress’ responsibility to pursue facts, insist on accountability and guard against executive overreach.
We need institutional fortitude.
Trump has repeatedly lambasted his critics and those leading the charge on the impeachment inquiry. In some cases he threatens retaliation. In the case of the whistle-blower, Trump said Monday the White House was “trying to find out” his identity. He also suggested Rep. Adam Schiff, a leader in the impeachment inquiry, should be arrested for treason.
He has called the inquiry a joke.
But it is not a joke.
—–––––v–––––—
Hoyt Purvis is an emeritus professor of journalism and international relations at the University of Arkansas. Email him at [email protected] .
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER
CLAIMS
A federal employee within the intelligence community formally filed a nine-page complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General. The filing outlines concerns about the propriety of a July 25 call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and subsequent White House measures to “lock down” transcripts and other details about the call. Trump has denied doing anything improper. The person who revealed the concerns is protected under the Whistleblower
Protection Act of 1989.