If there is a reasoned voice in the partisan din of impeachment opinions, it’s Senator John Cornyn (R-TX). On CBS’ Face The Nation, the former judge said this “is the first time in history a president has been impeached for a non-crime for events that never occurred.” He then suggested Trump’s real political sin: “a series of grifters and other hangers-on [associated] with the president’s campaign [claiming] to have a special relation with the president.”
As a political matter, Cornyn’s second point is consequential because the staffs of political outsiders tend toward restless and opportunistic newbies. And, as a constitutional issue, Washington – regardless of political affiliation – should ignore the “hangers-on” in order to support the electorate’s presidential choice. Sadly, impeachment is just one tactic of the left-wing resistance that fears Trump’s outside-the-box style and his supporters.
As a legal matter, Trump-Ukraine does not rise to the levels of the felonies that launched Nixon’s (burglary) or Clinton’s (perjury) impeachments. Absent a real crime, House Democrats had to allege the President “abused power” and “obstructed Congress” as impeachable misdemeanors – rather than wait for the 2020 elections. I can vote and decide for myself if a president has abused power (thank you very much).
Let it suffice to observe that “abuse of power” is just part of governance, whether it’s Obama’s Iran deal or Trump’s drone strike. Presidents have forever made diplomatic decisions, which were second-guessed by Congress. In this case, Democrats insist Burisma-Biden money did not meet the threshold for an investigation, which is absurd after insisting a conversation in a bar met the threshold to investigate Russia-Trump.
An even greater absurdity is the allegation the President obstructed Congress. This make-believe high misdemeanor could have been remedied by the judiciary. That’s right: allow the government’s third branch to force the release of documents and testimony. Instead of due process, Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment managers have resorted to intimidation; accusing senators of a “cover-up” in the event of dismissal or honoring executive privilege.
Cornyn said the charges will be taken “very seriously” in the Senate. The House should likewise take very seriously its burden of proof. Somehow, Nancy Pelosi fist-bumping Bill Maher and crowing “impeachment is forever” undermines the serious nature of ousting a president. I suspect the out-party wrongly thinks rejecting the status quo is a crime worthy of impeachment. As an actionable matter, that opinion is the purview of voters.
In the entrenched eyes of Washington, when a businessman beats two political dynasties in his first campaign, there must have been a crime. How could Trump, the “un-electable” barker, win the presidency without Washington money and experience? That’s a good question and the reason to forgive his long-shot campaign for attracting grifters (Manafort) and hangers-on (Papadopoulos).
While his Republican opponents employed experience and expertise, Trump hired rookies (Steve Bannon) and leftovers (Mike Flynn). Even after he won, most recognizable stars boycotted his inauguration. Once in office, his White House staff leaked, and many initial hires resigned. And, three years later, his antagonists are still trying to oust him. Ask yourself, whom does this serve? Sadly, a political establishment with no faith in elections or tolerance for trying something different.