The Two Simple Reasons Why Impeachment Will Fail
Clay Bennett
The Basics
On October 31 of 2019, the United States House of Representatives voted on a resolution to begin a formal impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump. The resolution was formed after a whistleblower complaint came forward that Trump had misused the power of his office in relation to a foreign government, namely Ukraine.
In the complaint, the whistleblower explains how Trump aimed to solicit assistance from Ukraine in investigating his chief political rival in the upcoming 2020 United States presidential election.
In response to the complaint, the White House released a summary memorandum of the call. In that call, some of the key quotes that raised alarm were:
Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ...
Trump: The other thing, There's a lot of. talk about Biden's son,. that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it ...
These two sections raised many concerns to the Democratic members of Congress as well as those in the intelligence community of the Unites States. Once the complaint became public, it was discovered that Trump's administration had frozen aid that had been approved by Congress prior to his July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian President. On September 11, two days after the inspector general of the intelligence community notifies the House intelligence committee that he received a whistleblower’s complaint related to the issue, that aid was released. It was also one day after Trump pushed out John Bolton as National Security Adviser.
Since Congress announced they were bringing witnesses in to testify about the Ukraine call, a few have established that the withholding of aid was tied to Ukraine opening an investigation into Biden, as well as making that public.
There have also been concerns about Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Guiliani, and whether his involvement in the ousting of the United States Ambassador to Ukraine as well as business affairs were legal. There is now an ongoing counterintelligence investigation dedicated to these questions.
The First Reason the Impeachment is Doomed
The reason this formal inquiry was undertaken by the Democrats was that it involved action that Donald J. Trump took to use the power of his office to advance his personal interest, namely to gain re-election in the 2020 presidential election. Using Congressional-approved aid as leverage to force a foreign government to have an involvement and provide something of value (a smear of Biden) is at the heart of the issue.
The Republicans, at the behest of the White House, have aimed to make this issue about overturning the result of the 2016 election. But in reality, the chief concern is in the election law that forbids someone from soliciting or accepting anything of value from a foreign national. The founders felt that having such influence in our elections could be detrimental to our national interests.
Why this point of the impeachment will not sway Republicans in the Senate is simple: They do not believe in free or fair elections.
This is a party that believes deeply in gerrymandering and voter suppression. Neither of those policies aims to create free or fair elections. In the 31 states with party registration, 40% are comprised of Democrats, 28% are Republican and 29% are Independent. That is a significant deficit that the GOP in the United States needs to overcome.
If free and fair were their mantra, they would be the minority party in most years. But through an intensive campaign of gerrymandering, they have been very successful in turning their minority numbers into a majority in many state legislatures.
The Second Reason For Impeachment Failure
In order for impeachment to become effective, it must be backed by the public. This will never happen due to the media outreach of the current Republican Party. Fox News has been described as state-run television and Trump is a master of dictating the narrative to his cult-like following. It is this exposure to such an alternate reality that will insulate Trump during the impeachment trial that is sure to be on the horizon.
One prime example of the alternate reality that Trump supporters live within was shown recently when it was discovered that only 40% of Republicans believe Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden.
Another is in the fact that Trump has surrounded himself with sycophants and loyalists such as Attorney General Bill Barr. They are skewing the narrative in favor of Trump, such as was done with Barr misrepresenting the findings of the Mueller probe prior to its release and that Barr saw no need to take action when the whistleblower filed their complaint. It's completely apparent to most that Barr is acting as Trump's attorney and not in the interests of the laws of the United States. But to his followers, Barr is seen as an expert.
Polling taken shortly after the formal impeachment inquiry vote shows that 82% of Democrats believe Trump should be removed from office with what is known and 47% of Independents. The figure is only 18% of Republicans as of early November of 2019. While Trump's approval rate among the GOP is down 13% (87-to-74) from July of 2019 to November of 2019, it's going to take more irrefutable information to sway his loyal base of 40%. Right now, he has taken control of the Republican party and that was never more evident than when the formal impeachment inquiry vote garnered zero votes from the GOP.
Between Trump's attacks on members of his own party who have shown disloyalty and the backing of Fox News, the information that gets presented to his most loyal followers will be similar to how the Mueller report was viewed. While 1,023 former federal prosecutors have signed aboard to claim that a conviction for Obstruction of Justice would have been the likely outcome for any other American not shielded by the Office of the Presidency for the actions that Trump took to harm the investigation, his supporters have bought his claim of exoneration. They are in a total break from reality and will follow Trump down whatever rabbit hole he leads them.
Is There Any Chance?
There may be some strategies for the Democrats to protect the republic from Trump and his minions. If they can show an overwhelming amount of evidence to all of Trump's crimes, crimes that to Democrats clearly show obstruction of justice, obstruction of Congress, emoluments clause violations, fraud, campaign finance law violations, and abuse of power, they may be able to sell Trump's base on the corruption that is evident to many.
Trump's strategy is to draw this out by obstructing as much as he can and get to the 2020 election to see if he can make the case that a vote should be the deciding factor in his guilt.
For Democrats, Trump has shown that he will break whatever laws he needs to in order to win. For some Trump supporters, that's something they admire in him. They call it fighting. For many of us, we call that criminality. And that is something we do not want anywhere near the Oval Office now, or in the foreseeable future.
Comments
J Conn (author) from Syracuse, NY on November 18, 2019:
The changes to USMCA are negligible and only affect a few industries. Check the fine print, that won't pay for a wall. Trump will only get a wall, a useless one at that, by making US taxpayers pay for it.
Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on November 18, 2019:
The new USMCA is a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada if passed by Congress, will over time help US workers and economy and in the process help pay a wall. You have a problem thinking outside the box. There are a numerous ways at our disposal to force some kind of compensation from Mexico without them writing a check.
The benefit in the long term if a new trade agreement could be made with China is along the same line. What cost us now can reap huge dividends down the road. What we do know, if nothing is done, China will surpass our GDP by 2030...
J Conn (author) from Syracuse, NY on November 18, 2019:
Did you really just try and sell, 'Mexico will pay for the wall,' as not a lie? He had no plan to force Mexico to pay for it, so he was lying and now he's using millions in taxpayer money for something that it took a $100 saw to cut through.
Telling America that winning trade wars is easy, then costing taxpayers thousands a year and forcing $29 billion in bailouts certainly hurts people financially.
Both of those lies cost taxpayers.
Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on November 18, 2019:
Trade wars is not not lying. It is a change in policy. You might not agree with how Trump is pursuing this, but all past administrations agree we needed to do something about China. Only Trump was bold enough to take it on. The same goes with illegal immigration. Despite Trump claiming Mexico will pay for the wall...it was Congress that failed to act, or more precisely prevented him from building the wall by not funding it. All past administrations, Democrats and Republicans said it was a serious problem. Once Trump proposed a solution, they all balked.
J Conn (author) from Syracuse, NY on November 18, 2019:
Jack, the same case about costly policies could be made for Trump. I would compare the ACA to Trump's tariffs. Do both have reasons that benefit America in fighting for healthcare or trade benefits. Sure. Trump said it would be so easy to win a trade war, yet, on average, he has added an additional $2,000 per year to the cost of goods for the American family and decimated the agricultural industry to the tune of $29 billion in bailouts. Comparing lying about crowd sizes to misleading policy claims wasn't really apples to apples, now was it?
Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on November 18, 2019:
JOC, you are right. The standards we expected from our politicians moved after Clinton. It moved again, after Obama...and now we ended with Trump. My point being, back in 1992, a person like Trump would never made past the primaries, let alone win.
We live in interesting times...and it is of our own making.
J Conn (author) from Syracuse, NY on November 18, 2019:
I'm not sure I was political back in those days, so I'm not sure I had an opinion. If it were me now, and the shadiness of his interactions with women came to light, I would not be supportive of him as he lied under oath to conceal his inappropriate behavior. Trump is similarly breaking the law by obstructing witnesses to testify about his illicit behavior and actions. So while so many stood with Clinton when he lied and broke the law, perhaps it should not be surprising to see the same with Trump and his supporters.
Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on November 18, 2019:
JOC, who cares about the size of the crowd? And Trumps exaggeration? Did you or your family suffer anything traumatic? Or financially?
The difference between Trump’s lie and Obama’s lie is a mile wide.
When Obama lied, to pass the ACA, millions of us citizens are hurt financially and in real terms with a poorer health insurance.
Do you see the difference or is this too deep for your pure heart?
Angie B Williams from Central Florida, USA on November 18, 2019:
Since you've gone back to words spoken years before his swearing-in, I'm wondering if you felt the same about Bill Clinton or if you were among those saying, "it's his personal life, it's his sex life, that's none of our business, nothing to do with governing, etc." .....just curious!
Take care JOC, agreeing to disagree once again.
J Conn (author) from Syracuse, NY on November 18, 2019:
I do understand why an outsider would be something to try, but as stories became known that he would stiff contractors and threaten them with lawsuits, it should have become apparent that he was just a bully and not someone standing behind the working class of this country. Combine that with his bragging about sexually assaulting women by just kissing them without permission and grabbing them by the pu**y, and it was obvious to many, that Trump was a horrible human being and not someone that should be trusted to make the best decisions for the country.
J Conn (author) from Syracuse, NY on November 18, 2019:
I was willing to give him a chance once he won the election. But then he lied to me and all of America on Day 1 of his presidency when he trotted Spicer out to claim to have the largest crowd sizes at his inauguration. It was then that I realized he could not be trusted because he had the audacity to try and claim something so obviously not rooted in truth.
As details of the Russia interference became known, it was logical to wonder how much involvement Trump had personally. I had more doubts when he fired Sally Yates for exposing Michael Flynn's deceit and Preet Bharara who was running many of the investigation in the Southern District of NY. I view those as petty retribution for people running legitimate investigation against his interests. Not something I want to see in a president.
I do agree that career politicians need to be reigned in, but a guy who takes vacations to his own businesses and charges the government for the additional expenses is right in line with those career politicians profiting from their office. Trump's golf has cost $108 million dollars and counting, or 54 years of presidential salary.
Angie B Williams from Central Florida, USA on November 18, 2019:
No I have to wonder why people like you, couldn't get on board with an outsider attempting to right many wrongs and why you're perfectly okay with an establishment of career politicians, that do no care a rat's behind about you, only their power, having so much power in a people's Republic.
J Conn (author) from Syracuse, NY on November 18, 2019:
AB, here is your statement: 'Articles of Impeachment were introduced less than a week later. by Rep. Al Green, TX.'
Go back and do your research about when he began calling for the impeach and actually introduced articles. You will find it was not a week after his inauguration as you claimed.
And I know why it is happening. When a hostile foreign nation interferes in our elections to help one candidate get elected, there will some hesitancy to support that candidate until he is cleared of any wrongdoing. And there should be. Instead of being forthcoming with the investigation into that interference, he fired the guy running it early into his term. And the Mueller report list nine other instances of obstruction that 1,027 former federal prosecutors insist they could have convicted him of: https://medium.com/@dojalumni/statement-by-former-...
Now why would the president, the man sworn to protect the US, obstruct an investigation into the country that attacked our elections? Many see that as treasonous. You have to wonder why people like you, who support the man, cannot identify his action to protect the country that attacked us. Or his actions to protect the guy who murdered a journalist living here in America. Or his actions to protect the guy who murdered our Allies in Syria. How much blood do you need?
Angie B Williams from Central Florida, USA on November 18, 2019:
Sorry Valeant, but I am not incorrect, the campaign to impeach this President started before his swearing-in.
At this point, dates (at Wikipedia for example) have been revised repeatedly. The last time I checked, they had changed it to -2017- (as the first mention of impeachment)
It's really unfortunate that this FACT doesn't concern you enough to ask why is this happening!?!
J Conn (author) from Syracuse, NY on November 17, 2019:
Thank you for proving the article's point. That even in the face of solicitation of a foreign government to smear his chief political rival, a crime, you call that a 'fishing expedition.' I appreciate you putting on display the view that Trump is above the campaign laws that govern this country and that you do not believe we should have fair elections.
Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on November 17, 2019:
One man’s obstruction is another man’s defiance of a fishing expedition...haha
J Conn (author) from Syracuse, NY on November 17, 2019:
Let us see Jack, maybe it's because Trump has illegally obstructed most who have first-hand knowledge from testifying to Congress. You keep making the same dumb talking point about first-hand knowledge. You do realize Trump and Mulvaney have admitted to tying an investigation to the aid publicly already, on television nonetheless. That's pretty first-hand.
J Conn (author) from Syracuse, NY on November 17, 2019:
No corruption is not new. I will try and help you understand why I make the point that Trump fabricated Biden being on the wrong side of that corruption.
The pressure to remove Shokin was because he refused to investigate corruption. First, Trump praises the prosecutor in the call to Zelensky. Like failing to investigate corruption is a good thing in his mind. He was trying and convince people that the prosecutor was actually doing an investigation into the company Biden's son worked for, which was not true at all. Watch the George Kent testimony about Biden's role. I think I'll believe the guy appointed to oversee anti-corruption who testified under oath.
Second, he tried to make it seem that any issues pertaining to that company happened while Biden's son worked there, which is also a falsehood. The issues happened a few years prior to them hiring Hunter Biden. But he made it appear that the elder Biden was intervening for his son, which was totally unnecessary since Hunter Biden had no part in any issues that had been investigated.
Third, conservative media completely misrepresented Biden being proud of forcing out a corrupt prosecutor.
That is why this is Trump soliciting a foreign government, by withholding aid, for a public smear of his chief political rival. And even if he did not achieve that goal, he has certainly put enough doubt in the minds of his followers to ensure they would not consider Biden. He has achieved something of value from this request. And Ukraine was made aware, perhaps not on the July 25 phone call, but prior to the aid being released that an announcement of an investigation was required to get that aid. Only when the Trump administration realized that a whistleblower complaint had been filed, did they actually release the aid. And Trump almost got his quid pro quo as Ukraine was apparently set to go on CNN and announce such an investigation.
Now many on the right refer to work done by John Solomon, a conservative opinion writer who worked for The Washington Post and The Hill who is now a Fox News contributor, appearing at least 50 times on Sean Hannity's show in a six-month period. This is the same John Solomon Solomon that reported claims in March that Yovanovitch had privately bad-mouthed Trump and that she had given Lutsenko a do-not-prosecute list, which the State Department called an “outright fabrication.” So conservatives are basing their truths on the guy who ran the smear campaign to get Yovanovitch removed because she opposed corruption. Dubious sourcing, at best.
Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on November 17, 2019:
There is no first hand evidence presented so far. Why? Why drag out people that refer to this as hearsay?
If there is real evidence, present it fairly in open hearing and let the people decide...
M S Beltran from USA on November 17, 2019:
If you agree it's compelling evidence if you disagree it's the other side's talking points. . . both sides like to pull that one. Both sides have talking points, I try to listen to the arguments. Talking points can sometimes make a good point and sometimes not make a good point. You're giving me Liberal talking points, but that's not why I disagree with you. I disagree with you because I think the particular talking points you're pulling up are poor arguments at their core.
Trump didn't fabricate the notion of corruption in Ukraine, whether it was a legit or not concern, that concern has been floating around for years. Not everyone agreed on what issues had been debunked and what had not. If you could prove he fabricated it, it would be a hell of a stronger case.
You could argue Trump took advantage of that concern... I'd agree he probably did. But it would have to be proven in an impeachment hearing, which is not something I've seen happen yet.
To your last paragraph, I actually think it's been the reverse. Trump support seems to have been a clear line from Trump hate and the exaggerated outrage from the day he was elected. But people on both sides are trying to defend the Constitution and the right to free and fair elections. People on both sides want to see justice done, they just don't agree on what constitutes justice here. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're acting with malice.
J Conn (author) from Syracuse, NY on November 17, 2019:
I don't have to assume that you are a Trump supporter when you wheel out the same talking points conservatives are clinging to about Trump investigating corruption when if you actually look at what he was trying to do was absolve Russia of 2016 interference and a false conspiracy theory that Biden did anything improper by representing the US in removing a corrupt prosecutor.
There was not any controversy, but Trump fabricated one to smear Biden and solicited a foreign government to do it by withholding congressionally-approved aid. Again, the bias I see is you ignoring the testimony from Kent who made it plainly evident that Biden did nothing wrong and that Trump and Guiliani were creating the next Benghazi or e-mail scandal.
Remind us all again, who went to jail for crimes committed in those manufactured smear campaigns? No one. This is their latest attempt to create a sideshow since lax gun laws, rising deficits, and trying to cut social security and access to health care aren't going to win an election. And people like you wheel out their talking points when it's plainly evident the intent here, and that that intent broke our laws.
And Trump hate is a clear line of thought from Trump supporters. It's not hate, it's patriotism to defend the Constitution and the right to free and fair elections. Your false claim that it's hate is a joke.
M S Beltran from USA on November 17, 2019:
What I have seen is that in every election since the 1980s (when I came of age to vote), people always accuse enthusiastic supporters of a President of treating him like a God.
Frankly the extreme Trump hate is as silly and misplaced to me as the extreme Trump love, but you could replace the name with "Obama" or "Clinton" or "Bernie" or "Bush" or "Regan" or even "AOC" and it would hold true. I see it as kind of a given.
But the reality I think is that most voters are just voting for the candidate with whom they agree more, or voting against a candidate they agree with less. Basically, the lesser of two evils. When people get challenged on that choice they tend to get defensive and dig in their heels, so they can sound much more one-sided in their arguing than they may really be, especially on social media or at public rallies.
Rex on November 17, 2019:
Ms Beltran:
"I'm sorry Don, but I just don't take flippant comments like 'I could shoot someone and they would still love me' as evidence of anything."
Huh? I don't have to take it as evidence of anything. I see how people defend him, every day, as if he is their supreme leader and god.
M S Beltran from USA on November 17, 2019:
You assume I am a Trump supporter, that's your problem. I didn't vote for the man in 2016 and I haven't made up my mind if I'm voting for him in 2020. I'm not a Trump supporter, I'm just not blinded by Trump hate.
I'm a justice supporter. If Trump did something illegal I want to see him impeached for it fairly, I don't want the legal system turned into a grudge match.
He asked a foreign government to investigate various claims of corruption, including Biden. There was still controversy about the corruption in Ukraine and whether there was anything left to investigate. Even if there wasn't, it's not a crime for a leader to think there was and be wrong.
Of course I think Trump should follow the laws. Asking a foreign government to investigate alleged corruption isn't against the law for the President. Even pressuring them to do so isn't against the law (that's how Biden got the corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine fired).
I think it's quite possible Trump was going after Biden for political gain and it had nothing to do with any altruistic desire to uncover widespread corruption in Ukraine; I just don't think the Democrats have been successful in presenting that case or proving Trump's intentions.
Please stop assuming everyone is as biased one way or the other like you are.
J Conn (author) from Syracuse, NY on November 17, 2019:
Trump asking a foreign government to announce an investigation into Biden is a violation of campaign finance laws. Apparently, you did not watch the testimony of George Kent, a corruption specialist, who stated that there is no base in fact that Biden did anything wrong. Do you not believe in free and fair elections? This is one big point you Trump supporters keep proving over and over again in your comments, that you do not think Trump needs to follow the laws when it comes to the 2020 election. In order to defend that right, the Democrats had to bring this inquiry.
M S Beltran from USA on November 17, 2019:
I'm sorry Don, but I just don't take flippant comments like 'I could shoot someone and they would still love me' as evidence of anything. It's hyperbole-- the man is a braggart. All of his adult life, every interview, his TV show, his book, etc., he has always acted with ridiculous swagger and spoke boastfully. These are his mannerisms, which are not a crime. Some voters are loyal to some politicians, that is true everywhere in politics, so what?
If Trump is guilty of anything worthy of impeachment, I want more than just arguments about why he's an asshole (pardon my French), or why people disagree with his methods and policies, or what people *think* he was thinking that they think was bad. I want to see real evidence, I want a fair and compelling argument so that the public can feel confident that impeachment and, if it came to it, removal from office was actually warrented.
At this point, the Dems just don't look like they got the goods. Unlike in previous impeachment hearings, Congress is too divided and the country remains too divided.
I'm at the point at which I think Democrats in Congress just felt pressured to jump on something and act on something because they, and their mainstream media cheerleaders have been promising it and trying to fan the flame of outrage for three years. I have a sneaking suspicion that they figured this impeachment effort would go nowhere, there's no way at this point the Senate is going to remove Trump from office, but they know that Trump seeming to "win" this battle by keeping his office will whip up their base into even more of a frenzy for 2020. They want to cry during the race, 'Oh look at the injustice, he got away with Russiagate and he got away with misogyny and racism and he got away with yadda yadda yadda, and now he got away with Ukrainegate, we MUST stop this man! Make sure you get out and vote for us!'
I don't think this was an honest effort to impeach the president; I think it was a political stunt, and if that is the case it is pretty concerning because it was done with the knowledge that it would overall hurt the country by exacerbating the political divide and animosity between the two sides.
J Conn (author) from Syracuse, NY on November 17, 2019:
AB is not correct, Jack. Green did not start calling for Trump's impeachment until May of 2017 and did not introduce articles of impeach until December of 2017. But don't let these facts get in the way your brainwashing.
Jack Lee from Yorktown NY on November 17, 2019:
AB, you are correct. The way I see it, it is like the boy who cried wolf story. The Democrats cried wolf from day one and it has not worked so far...They should realize, if down the road, Trump was discovered to have done something really unConstitutional, they will not be able to convince anyone...to impeach him. Sad that they have not learned a lesson every child learned from parents at age 5.
Angie B Williams from Central Florida, USA on November 17, 2019:
"If all you have is slogans".....is it really necessary to do a review of what this man has been up against since day one V?
Okay, I can definitely elaborate.
Inauguration Day, headline in the Washington Post, 'The Campaign to Impeach the President Has Begun'.
Articles of Impeachment were introduced less than a week later. by Rep. Al Green, TX. That pattern has continued, while the campaign to impeach (the coup to take him down, take him out) goes on as planned.
Because career INSIDERS, don't want him there, because he doesn't fit the mold, he doesn't play by THEIR rules. By the way, their rules and guidelines have absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution or this people's Republic.
Theirs, is more of a mob rule mentality; lies, deception and corruption are just at the surface of the all out effort to rid D.C. of the outsider.
But, while this campaign (coup) continues, an investigation into the all out effort to take down a President, continues as well.
As the song says, "It will all come out in the wash" and then I will be happy to elaborate even further.
J Conn (author) from Syracuse, NY on November 17, 2019:
Guiliani, paid by corrupt Ukrainians lobbies Trump to remove Yovanovitch, and he complies. George Kent, an anti-corruption specialist since 2012, shoots down the conspiracy theory pertaining to Biden. Yet, pretty sure it's all conspiracy theory, all day long for a large percentage of Trump's base. Hardly worth debating with people like that since they live in such an alternate reality. If all you have is slogans like drain the swamp, you're definitely part of the devoted (and alternate-reality living) base.
Angie B Williams from Central Florida, USA on November 16, 2019:
It will go on until Trump stops draining.
I do agree with you about Schiff, he is one spooky dude!
Suzie from Carson City on November 16, 2019:
Ang...In any case, her testimony was solid, riveting and believable. I have a serious issue with Guliani. Too many times and incidents now, where his insistence to speak publicly has done Trump more harm than good. In the first place, he is Trump's personal Attorney...shouldn't be flapping his jaws AT ALL. He must know better than this. Certainly he's keenly aware of the importance of client-privilege. That he stepped in and slandered Yovanivich, knowing full-well the State Dept. would take issue with all of it, was a huge mistake.