As this is written, the final vote on the impeachment exercise is yet to be taken. But the outcome of acquittal is certain. It has been all along. With Trump’s iron-fisted control of the Republican Party, and McConnell’s absolute control of the Senate, the result was never in doubt.
The Founding Fathers understood the corrupting influence of absolute power, and designed a system of government intended to prevent excessive accumulation of power. That system is based on three co-equal branches of government, each with mechanisms by which to check power of the others. The innate human tendency to hold on to existing power would incentivize each branch of government to prevent excessive accumulation of power by the other branches. For example, members of Congress would jealously react to prevent accumulation of power by the executive branch.
Their assumption of the quest for power was absolutely correct. But what they did not foresee was that members of congress would someday equate power more strongly with collaborating with a president of the same party than with maintaining power of the Congress as a body.
President Trump clearly withheld congressionally approved funds intended to assist Ukraine in its military defense against Russia. This was a clear violation of the Budget Impoundment and Control Act. This alone would be expected to infuriate a congress that is charged with allocating funds.
But looking at it through the restated “power lens” above, it’s easy to see why Congressional Republicans would go along with the President. Republican legislators see their power more closely aligned with the Republican President than they do with jealously guarding congressional power to allocate funds, at least in this case. No Republican wanted to fall on that sword by challenging Trump for withholding those funds.
The plot thickens as releasing those withheld funds, and Ukrainian President Zelensky’s visit to the White House, would depend on a Ukrainian public announcement of an investigation of former U.S. VP Joe Biden, a potential 2020 opponent of Trump. Foreign meddling in an American election was of special concern to the Founding Fathers, as the fledgling American nation remained on shaky grounds.
Withholding lawfully appropriated funds in exchange for smearing a political opponent of the next election was seen by Democrats as clear grounds for impeachment and conviction of the President. Republicans in both the House and Senate, seeing their power tied to President Trump, predictably opposed impeachment and conviction that would remove Trump from office. For any Senate Republican to vote for conviction, would surely put him/her at the mercy of President Trump who would rally his base against them. McConnell, along with Republican donors, would turn off the money spigot for any wayward Republican. Republicans’ retention of power depended on backing the President.
Democrats did a thorough job of presenting their case for conviction; after all, the facts were on their side.
Republicans used a combination of tactics to defend the President, claiming: The process was not legitimate. There was no first hand proof of a quid pro quo. Withholding funds was for legitimate reason — besides, funds were eventually released, therefore, no quid pro quo.
Trump’s defense team resorted to distractions: It was really Ukraine, not Russia that interfered in the 2016 election. The Bidens, not Trump, were guilty of corruption.
The most absurd Republican defense was legal mumbo jumbo declaring that as policy and political objectives of a president often coincide, this gives president latitude to tie any act to “national interest, therefore unimpeachable.”
The most plausible argument in defense of Trump would have been, “Yes, both withholding our congressionally appropriated funds, and seeking foreign assistance to smear a respected American Vice President and political opponent were wrong — but it doesn’t rise to an impeachable level.”
That argument would at least have declared Trump’s action as definitely wrong — and illegal — and would have served notice to Trump and future presidents to avoid repetition.
Why did Republicans resist this position and argue otherwise to the point of absurdity?
It is about power and Trump’s stranglehold on his Party. Trump insists that his call to the Ukrainian President was “perfect.” Any criticism deviating from the fiction that Trump’s call was “perfect,” incurs his wrath.
Even though the public can read the redacted transcript of Trump’s phone call, and numerous credible witnesses testified to the conditions Trump demanded for release of the funds, Republicans complained about “no first hand witnesses.”
Enter former Trump National Security Agency Director, John Bolton. This hard-core Republican Conservative’s testimony on Trump’s actions could have put the entire defense case in jeopardy. At minimum, it would put intense pressure on Republican Senators up for reelection, namely those representing Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, and Maine.
McConnell’s power depends on retaining a Senatorial majority that, in turn, depends on victories by Arizona’s McSally, Colorado’s Gardner, Iowa’s Ernst, and Maine’s Collins, all in swing states. Of the four, Collins is in deepest trouble.
For Bolton’s testimony, Democrats needed four Republican votes; three would be a tie, throwing it to presiding Chief Justice Roberts who would certainly never vote with Democrats for witnesses. In addition to the above four Republicans, Alaska’s Murkowski, Utah’s Romney, and Tennessee’s retiring Alexander, were possibilities. Senator King, an Independent who votes with Democrats, surmised that as many as ten Republicans might be so persuaded. It’s hard to believe that a sitting Senator could be so naive.
McSally, Gardner, and Alexander voted against witnesses. With that, McConnell gave Collins her free pass to vote for witnesses, along with Romney, the rare Republican who need not worry about Trump’s wrath. Murkowski, not wanting to put McConnell under pressure to hand a tie to Justice Roberts, voted against witnesses.
Republicans refused to hear witness testimony that they didn’t want to hear. Will this be a problem for them later?
Maybe, but in the inexorable quest for power, short run considerations generally supersede longer run considerations, whether it’s facing voters, or the verdict of history.
— John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Saturdays in the Monroe Times.
