Yesterday, for the third time in a half-century, the first of what promises to be days of public hearings into the grounds for impeachment of an American president was held.
Some televised events form the cultural glue that binds together a nation made up of people of many backgrounds, beliefs and stations in life: the World Series, the Oscars, the Super Bowl, news of war or national tragedy. But none are as fundamental to the democratic origins of the nation itself as election results and attempts to remove an elected official accused of violating the public’s trust.
The demands of life mean that few can watch the hour-by-hour testimony of those called before the House to testify. But every citizen who cares about the nation and its founding principles should view or read at least portions of the testimony, unpolluted by spin from partisan sources, and judge for themselves.
Are the acts so much as admitted to by the president, making military aid to a foreign government contingent on the announcement of a corruption investigation targeting a political rival and fellow U.S. citizen, grounds for impeachment and removal? Under what circumstances, if any, is a president above the law? Does a president’s refusal to cooperate with a coequal branch of government constitutionally charged with serving as a check on the executive branch constitute obstruction of justice? How fervent must that obstruction be to justify impeachment? Is forbidding government employees to testify in an investigation of potential executive wrongdoing itself an impeachable offense? Can an administration refuse to provide documents subpoenaed by Congress? When it came to the Nixon tapes, the Supreme Court said no. Is, as some with extreme views of presidential power argue, the nation’s sitting chief executive above the law?
These are the kinds of questions the House hearings will explore, and they are important.
More than two centuries ago, George Washington warned, in his farewell address, that “foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.” The nation then was young and weak, and foreign attempts to influence the course of America’s history were a real and present danger.
More than two centuries later, the players are different but the fear is the same. America’s intelligence agencies unanimously reported that Russia waged a massive effort to sow discord and influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Those efforts continue to this day. Nor is Russia the only foreign rival endeavoring to meddle in American elections. They know that once faith in the fairness of elections is lost, democracy itself is endangered.
Impeachment is a political, not a criminal, process. The president is charged with pressuring a foreign government to take actions that would benefit not the nation but himself personally. If true, is that an impeachable offense?
The rules of the process are those Congress makes for itself. The subject of an impeachment process enjoys, for example, no presumption of innocence. There is a jury, in the form of the Senate, which, if a majority of House members vote to impeach, may fail to convict, but there is no judge. Conviction requires a two-thirds vote, a bar the Founders purposely set high to protect against partisanship.
Though one side, seeking to denigrate the process, is in effect saying “nothing to see here folks, fake news, get over it,” the impeachment hearings are history in the making. The actions of the players in this national drama will, particularly if the process moves from the House to the Senate, determine how each of them is viewed by history.
Impeachments are a test of whether a governing system based on three separate but equal branches of government that keep each other accountable is still working. Failing the test would mean that democracy itself is under threat.