An earthquake struck the U.S. government last week when the Senate voted 51-49 against hearing any new witnesses or reviewing documents withheld by the White House at the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
Whether you are a Trump supporter or a Trump critic it is important to recognize that the Senate’s vote set precedents that fundamentally alter the role of Congress and the president in our government.
For starters, the vote was tantamount to an acquittal on the impeachment charges against Trump – despite overwhelming evidence that he had extorted Ukraine by explicitly conditioning hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid needed to combat Russia on the announcement of investigations into a political rival.
Just the scenario our country’s founders had in mind when including the impeachment clause in the Constitution. As others have said, if that is not impeachable what is?
The vote was the first time in this country’s history that the Senate voted against hearing witnesses and seeking documents in an impeachment trial. In all 14 other impeachment trials of presidents and judges, witnesses were called and documents produced.
You don’t have to be a legal scholar to know that a trial without additional witnesses and documents is no trial at all. At least, not in America. At least until now.
The Senate’s vote also endorsed Trump’s blanket refusal to turn over documents and to allow administration officials to testify at the House impeachment hearings – another first.
But the Republicans’ failure to perform their constitutional duty was no surprise.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced early on that he would conduct the trial in coordination with the White House. And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) among others had already announced he did not plan to be a neutral juror – as he would swear to at the start of the trial.
In what court has that ever happened before?
The Senate’s abdication of its responsibility signals an end of congressional oversight of the executive branch and places the president above the law.
Who says?
Well, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee), for one. He said Trump’s behavior “undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.”
But then he went on to say that it was up to the American people, not the Senate to hold him accountable.
There are two problems with this.
In voting against hearing witnesses and seeking documents, the Senate blocked voters from information needed to help make their choice at the ballot box.
Even worse, Alexander and other Senate Republicans ignored the “mountain of evidence” that Trump had used military aid for a country engaged in defending itself from a Russian invasion to rig the 2020 presidential election.
The Senate’s vote gave Trump, and a future president of either party, the green light to use taxpayer dollars as leverage to obtain political benefits without consequence.
Why wouldn’t Trump do it again now?
Republican senators argue that his impeachment taught Trump a lesson. Yes, that he can do whatever he wants.
It is not hard to imagine Trump reaching out to Russia or China for help in his re-election campaign. In fact, you don’t even have to imagine him doing it. He already has.
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian John Meacham said that Trump is now “functionally a monarch.”
You may like Trump because of his tax cuts, the federal judges he has appointed, his immigration policy and the way he speaks to critics.
But it seems hard to argue that Congress, the federal courts and the president are now still co-equal branches of government.
For residents of New York, the news is even worse.
At a time when the population of the country lives in overwhelming numbers in cities and suburbs, the U.S. Senate now favors states with large rural populations that usually vote Republican.
The 49 senators who lost the vote on impeachment witnesses – 45 Democrats. two Independents and two Republicans – represent 19 million more people than the 51 Republican senators who won.
Republican legislatures across the country have also proven very successful in approving legislation to suppress the vote among young people and minorities, who tend to vote for Democrats.
If you think this does not matter then take a look at the cap on state and local tax deductions passed by a Republican Congress and approved by Trump in 2017. It has been a financial body blow to states such as New York that are generous in the services they provide.
There are still things residents of Nassau County as well as the rest of New York can do.
New York’s role in the presidential election is limited by the Electoral College, which does not require a winner to be the candidate with the most votes, as was the case of Hillary Clinton, who got more than three million more votes than Trump.
But New York does have a big say in who controls the House of Representatives.
We should not forget that the so-called Senate trial would not have occurred without massive voter turnout in 2018 that turned control of the House to Democrats.
As disappointing as the result, it took a Democratic majority to provide oversight over Trump and to expose his misdeeds.
New Yorkers can also stand strongly behind the press, which has played a large role in exposing wrongdoing that the Trump administration has sought to hide.
With the Senate refusing to perform its constitutional duties. the press plays an increasingly important role in informing the public and holding the government accountable.
This role is even more important at a time when social media giants such as Facebook have shown that they prefer profits over fair elections by refusing to block content they know to be false.
And when the president refers to the press as the “enemy of the people.”
The president has repeatedly sought to discredit the press. We will all need to be vigilant that he does not go any further than that.
Democracy in this country now faces its greatest challenge since the Civil War. For those who cherish our system of government, this is not a time to sit idly by.
Thanks for adding to the left wing rag status of most media. On a local level you’re right up there with that other lib tabloid – Newsday.
Do you mean the impeachment that began 17 minutes after Trump was inaugurated? The impeachment in search of crimes and misdemeanors using fake so documents, lying to the court and spying on citizens based on those lies? 17 errors made by the FBI all in favor of their sham investigation? The Russia hoax followed by the Ukraine hoax? Who asked Ukraine to disarm and sent them blankets when Russia annexed Crimea…Oops, that was Obama. Biden withheld to Ukraine to ensure the prosecutor investigating his son was fired. It doesn’t take much to actually seek and read facts, not just your uber-liberal view.
“Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff did not wait to fill out the factual record. They did not even wait to see their own subpoenas through the legal system. They plowed ahead for two reasons: They said impeachment was too urgent to wait, and they said they’d already proven their case.
“But since then . . . [t]hey’ve spent four weeks demonstrating through their actions that impeachment is actually not that urgent and they do not actually have much confidence in their case. An arbitrary four-week delay does not show urgency. And these demands for the Senate to pre-commit to reopening the House investigation do not show confidence. . .
“The Constitution gives the sole power of impeachment to the House. If a House majority wants to impeach a president, the ball is in their court. But they have to do the work. They have to prove their case.
“Nothing in our history or our Constitution says a House majority can pass what amounts to a half-baked censure resolution and then insist that the Senate fill in the blanks. There is no constitutional exception for a House majority with a short attention span. . .
“Here’s how deep we have come into ‘Bizarro World.’ The latest [progressive] talking point is that if the Senate conducts a trial based on what the House itself looked at, we’ll be engaged in a ‘cover-up’! Did you get that? Unless the Senate steps outside our lane and takes it upon ourselves to supplement the House case, it’s a ‘cover-up.’ . . .
“We heard over and over that the House case, on its own, was totally damning and convincing. Clearly a majority of the House felt it was sufficient to impeach. . . But now, all of a sudden, the story has reversed. . .
“We have arrived at a simple contradiction. Two things cannot both be true. House Democrats’ case cannot simultaneously be so robust that it was enough to impeach in the first place. . . but also so weak that the Senate needs to go fishing.”
Thanks for adding to the left wing rag status of most media. On a local level you’re right up there with that other lib tabloid – Newsday.
Do you mean the impeachment that began 17 minutes after Trump was inaugurated? The impeachment in search of crimes and misdemeanors using fake documents, lying to the court and spying on citizens based on those lies? 17 errors made by the FBI all in favor of their sham investigation? The Russia hoax followed by the Ukraine hoax? Who asked Ukraine to disarm and sent them blankets when Russia annexed Crimea…Oops, that was Obama. Biden withheld to Ukraine to ensure the prosecutor investigating his son was fired. It doesn’t take much to actually seek and read facts, not just your uber-liberal view.
“Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff did not wait to fill out the factual record. They did not even wait to see their own subpoenas through the legal system. They plowed ahead for two reasons: They said impeachment was too urgent to wait, and they said they’d already proven their case.
“But since then . . . [t]hey’ve spent four weeks demonstrating through their actions that impeachment is actually not that urgent and they do not actually have much confidence in their case. An arbitrary four-week delay does not show urgency. And these demands for the Senate to pre-commit to reopening the House investigation do not show confidence. . .
“The Constitution gives the sole power of impeachment to the House. If a House majority wants to impeach a president, the ball is in their court. But they have to do the work. They have to prove their case.
“Nothing in our history or our Constitution says a House majority can pass what amounts to a half-baked censure resolution and then insist that the Senate fill in the blanks. There is no constitutional exception for a House majority with a short attention span. . .
“Here’s how deep we have come into ‘Bizarro World.’ The latest [progressive] talking point is that if the Senate conducts a trial based on what the House itself looked at, we’ll be engaged in a ‘cover-up’! Did you get that? Unless the Senate steps outside our lane and takes it upon ourselves to supplement the House case, it’s a ‘cover-up.’ . . .
“We heard over and over that the House case, on its own, was totally damning and convincing. Clearly a majority of the House felt it was sufficient to impeach. . . But now, all of a sudden, the story has reversed. . .
“We have arrived at a simple contradiction. Two things cannot both be true. House Democrats’ case cannot simultaneously be so robust that it was enough to impeach in the first place. . . but also so weak that the Senate needs to go fishing.”