It has been a fall of fact-seeking. Since reports of a whistleblower complaint surfaced, US politicians, media and the public at large have awaited the newest developments in the case of President Trump’s demand for Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. Republicans have called the impeachment inquiry an attempt to derail the President’s reputation ahead of next year’s general election, while some Democrats have spoken out against the inquiry because of the potential political ramifications resulting from an investigation of the President. Nonetheless, on September 24th, 2019 Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, officially announced an inquiry to be voted on. While many damning facts about the President’s actions have come to light, House Democrats still face backlash from most of the Republican party and even some of their own supporters for this inquiry. The truth is, both sides are wrong. At this point, the question isn’t whether there should be an impeachment investigation, but whether the man in the oval office should be removed from the highest office this world has ever known. 

The talk amongst Republicans in Congress has shifted recently. It began as a discussion of whether or not Trump committed this act. There was initially no proof to suggest that the withholding of aid to Ukraine was directly related to Trump’s wish for the country to investigate Joe Biden and the DNC hacking. However, as testimonies from people like Bill Taylor, the leading US diplomat in Ukraine, and Gordon Sondland, US Ambassador to the EU, unfold, we begin to clearly see there was a quid pro quo that Ukraine was aware of.  Sondland recently reversed his previous testimony, stating that “I now recall speaking individually with Mr. [Andriy] Yermak, where I said resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.” Furthermore, in his opening statement to Congress, Taylor states that “President Trump did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference” following the suspension of aid to Ukraine. Taylor also believes that a “stalemate,” referred to by Andriy Yermak, Zelensky’s personal aide, should Zelensky not meet Trump’s demands to “clear things up and do it in public,” meant the withholding of aid from Ukraine. If this isn’t a quid pro quo, then we don’t know what is. 

As such, Republicans have stopped denying the action itself occurred, and instead question whether there was actually any wrongdoing. A Vox/Ipsos poll asked if pressuring another country to investigate a political rival is a high crime and misdemeanor. The poll found that, while 77% of Democrats and 52% of Independents believe that it is, only 22% of Republicans agree. A more revealing statistic: not only do 68% of Republicans believe that this type of action is not a high crime and misdemeanor, but 65% also believe that this kind of thing happens all the time. Yet, the same poll showed that 67% of Republicans do believe abusing office for political gain is impeachable. This indicates that the majority of Republicans have adopted the belief that pushing a foreign government to investigate a political rival is normal behavior of a president. It is clear Republicans see asking for dirt on a political opponent and thus abusing the powers of office for personal political gain as mutually exclusive events. 

Denying any wrongdoing in this case is actually more dangerous than denying it happened at all. People that deny this event contradict facts yes, but they still acknowledge the moral and legal issues of what Trump has done. When we acknowledge that a quid pro quo happened, but fail to have a problem with it, then that becomes commonplace; that becomes the norm for what is acceptable. The problem with Republicans refuting impeachment is not that they are unhappy with it. Rather, when they establish a precedent that a president abusing his office is the new norm that can go unpunished, then we jeopardize what the Constitution seeks to protect. Impeachment was included in our constitution to be used when it has to be, to put the duties and powers of the nation’s most powerful figure in check. If Americans start ignoring the need for even an impeachment inquiry, then our government’s checks and balances altogether are at stake. 

While many Republicans are endangering the validity of impeachment, some Democrats are misunderstanding its purpose. Many Democrats have expressed concerns over the effect impeachment will have on their chances at retaking the oval office in 2020. With Trump’s cult-like following, it is fair for Democrats to worry that some swing voters could interpret impeachment as a partisan attempt by the left to remove a Republican executive. However, the problem arises when people argue that because of these concerns, impeachment should not be pursued at all. Impeachment was not inserted into the Constitution as a political act. The idea of impeaching a sitting president is innately non-partisan. Congress is supposed to investigate and try a president if they abuse their office. It does not refer to the dominating party in Congress or the party that benefits most politically from impeachment. Ideally, impeachment rises above political considerations. But America has broken its own system. Partisanship has taken precedence over the constitutional duty to remove a corrupt president from office. 

This is not about how impeachment will affect Trump’s voter turnout. This is not about whether swing voters will acknowledge his corruption or victimize him next year. This is not even about the potential political benefits from impeachment. What this is about is that a president withheld government money from a foreign country until they agreed to help him politically by digging up dirt on his leading opponent. That is, by definition, abuse of office for political gain. We have to stop thinking about this in the context of what it could mean in terms of next year’s election and instead start thinking think of this in the context of what it does mean in terms of the law. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat who thinks Donald Trump could win or lose because of this, or if you’re a Republican who doesn’t want him removed from office under any circumstances. Donald Trump possibly abused his power as President of the United States–the most heralded position in the world. It doesn’t matter who he is, what party he aligns with, or if he’s up for reelection. If there exists a mere possibility that the sitting president broke the law, then it is the duty of Congress, as outlined by the Constitution of the United States of America, to make President Trump stand trial.

Sources

1. Cai, Weiyi, and K. K. Rebecca. “Trump's Efforts to Push Ukraine Toward a Biden Inquiry: A Timeline.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Sept. 2019, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/trump-ukraine-impeachment-timeline.html?action=click&module=STYLN_trump_suite&variant=1_trump_suite&state=default&pgtype=Article®ion=footer&context=guide.

2. Wolf, Zachary B, et al. “Trump Impeachment Inquiry: A Visual Timeline.” CNN, Cable News Network, 6 Nov. 2019, www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/10/politics/impeachment-inquiry-timeline/.

3. Jeremy Herb and Marshall Cohen, “Key Diplomat Changes Testimony and Admits Quid pro Quo with Ukraine,” CNN (Cable News Network, November 5, 2019), https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/05/politics/gordon-sondland-kurt-volker-transcripts-impeachment-inquiry/index.html)

4. Klein, Ezra. “Poll: 65% of Republicans Say Trump's Ukraine Scheme Was Normal Presidential Behavior.” Vox. Vox, November 9, 2019. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/9/20955441/impeachment-trump-poll-ukraine-2020-democrats-republicans.