Impeachment or Vengeance?

Monday Nancy Pelosi intends to introduce articles of impeachment against Donald Trump.  Most Democrats support this move.  Republicans are somewhat split.

But does this move make sense?  Is it in keeping with Biden’s claim of being a unifier?  To answer that question one must go beyond the emotional hysteria and look at law and facts (though that emotional hysteria will come into the answer as well). (As to more on Biden’s unity, see my post from Jan. 9 HERE)

Most well-respected constitutional scholars who are asked will tell you that President Trump’s actions on January 6 do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.  See for example Jonathan Turley HERE  or Alan Dershowitz HERE 

The standard for violent speech is found in Brandenburg v. Ohio; it allows the government to criminalize speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Trump, in his typically bombastic fashion, never actually called for violence or riots. What he did is to urge his supporters to march on the Capitol to raise their opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back the challenges being made by a few members of Congress. Trump told the crowd “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard.”  He ended his remarks by saying a protest at the Capitol was meant to provide Republicans “the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” He told the crowd, “Let us walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”

We should note that such sorts of marches and demonstrations frequently occur in DC when there is important legislative or legal business or decisions occurring.  There are often marches and demonstrations outside the Supreme Court when the Court is hearing a particularly important or divisive case.  Similar words are always heard during the speeches that precede such marches and demonstrations.

Dershowitz stated that while he personally disapproves of what Trump said in his Wednesday address, "it comes within core political speech, and to impeach a president for exercising his First Amendment rights would be so dangerous to the Constitution." 

Turley states, “There was no call for lawless action by Trump. Instead, there was a call for a protest at the Capitol. Moreover, violence was not imminent, as the vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters were not violent before the march, and most did not riot inside the Capitol. Like many violent protests in the last four years, criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators. Capitol Police knew of the march but declined an offer from the National Guard since they did not view violence as likely.”

Both Turley and Dershowitz believe that this impeachment would set dangerous precedents for the future.  "It would lie around like a loaded weapon ready to be used by either party against the other party, and that’s not what impeachment or the 25th Amendment were intended to be."(Dershowitz).

Turley wrote:

“The damage caused by the rioters this week was enormous, however, it will pale in comparison to the damage from a new precedent of a snap impeachment for speech protected under the First Amendment. It is the very threat that the framers sought to avoid in crafting the impeachment standard. In a process of deliberative judgment, the reference to a snap impeachment is a contradiction. In this new system, guilt is not doubted and innocence is not deliberated. This would do to the Constitution what the violent rioters did to the Capitol and leave it in tatters.”

So, given this solid logic from these and other legal scholars, why then impeach?

I think it is nothing more than the culmination of the irrational hatred toward Donald Trump that we have seen for the last 4 years.  The Democrats for whatever reason have loathed Trump from the moment he became the 2016 candidate.  They have done everything in their power to remove him from office.  They have tried to block his policies.  They have kept their base riled up with animosity toward not only the President but his supporters as well. 

They do not want justice; they are not doing this for the country.  What the Democrats want is to destroy the President, to see him suffer.  I believe many would guillotine him in the public square if they could. 

Here is a thought from one of the few  Democrats in Congress able to be rational about this issue.  Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) says she will introduce a bill to censure Trump.  A censure is a formal reprimand or statement of disapproval.  She states, "A censure resolution is the only way to send a bipartisan, bicameral message without delay to the country and the world that the United States is a nation of laws."

This makes sense.  While the President’s words were not criminal and do not support impeachment, while they were not violent or inciteful, many believe it would have been a wiser move if he had not given that speech.  So give him what is essentially a reprimand for doing so; that should satisfy anyone whose motive is justice and not retribution or revenge. 

The introduction of this bill for censure is a first step toward the unity that everyone claims they want for the country.  Voting for it instead of impeachment would go a far longer way toward that unity.  It would show us that rational minds prevail.

But the problem is it will not satisfy the irrational hatred that spews forth daily from most of the Left.  They want their pound of flesh (for what I am still not clear).  But we shall see.  Tomorrow will tell us what this is really about – justness or vengeance.   It will also show us how serious the Left is in their calls for peace, healing, and unity.