Commentary on beginning of impeachment
It has been said and written that the problem with the impeachment of President Trump is that there are no facts on which to base it. That depends on what the definition of “is” is. Or maybe, what the definition of “fact” is. With regard to “is,” Republicans and Democrats differ as to what constitutes a crime. What Democrats see as criminal abuse of power, Republicans see as business as usual. With regard to “facts,” one may look at history. Remember when the tobacco industry insisted that the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer was “unproven?” Their lawyers, Republicans all, claimed that unless a biological mechanism was discovered and established that showed how the one caused the other, all the statistical evidence in the world was irrelevant. Agent Orange was similarly deemed harmless. No facts.
Today, we have actions by our President, recorded and made public or public in the first place, asking for foreign interference in our elections, asking for criminal acts on the part of Russia (hacking Ms. Clinton’s emails and making them public), and attempting to bribe and extort a foreign head of state.
As well as facts, we have glaring implications. No one would lie to Congress, or to the FBI, risking prison, out of confusion. All of the men convicted of obstruction of justice knew what they were doing. Most of them had passed the Bar somewhere, and so were smart enough and trained enough to easily avoid interview “traps.” So why did they do it? Apparently, to protect President Trump from something (and after implied promises of Presidential pardons). Why has the President ordered everyone over whom he has authority to ignore subpoenas to testify about him? If there is nothing to hide, why not let them say so? Why has he gone to court to prevent his tax records from being seen, something all recent presidents have offered when asked? Could it be conflict of interest?
An impeachment trial will be an illuminating event. Senator Lindsey Graham apparently wants to avoid any testimony at the trial, to go straight to a vote: issuing no pesky subpoenas, risking the exposure of no facts. No further facts. Some other Republican senators want to interrogate the witnesses they were prevented from questioning in the House. Those people have already revealed all that they can that might be damaging, so there would be no risk.
Let the games begin. Open the gates, and let the facts into the arena.
Bill Gillmore
Columbus
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 37 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.