The Issue Of “Majority:” The Impeachment Trial Of US Pres. Donald J. Trump

One issue that is making headlines globally is the ongoing impeachment trial of the President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump. The President of the greatest democracy and nation on earth is being tried for alleged “Misconduct and Obstruction of Congress.” Impeachment, among other things, is a “charge of misconduct made against the holder of a public office.”

Additionally, the Black Law’s Dictionary defines impeachment as the act of calling for the removal from office of a public official, accomplished by presenting a written charge of the official’s alleged misconduct. Like in the Liberian Constitution, it begins in the House of
Representatives.

Likewise in the US, It is as a proceeding in the U.S. House of Representatives against a federal official, such as the President or a judge, as it relates to Article II, Section 4 of the American Constitution.
That provision of the American Constitution states:” the President, Vice President, and all civil Officials of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Already, the US House of Representatives, dominated by Democrats, have found him guilty of these acts and have accordingly forwarded the Article of Impeachment to the US Senate, dominated by Republicans, which is currently carrying on the trial, which is expected to end tomorrow, as final arguments were held yesterday by representatives of the House of Representatives and lawyers of President Trump.

Trump was impeached by the House on Dec. 18 on articles of Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. Both articles relate to his efforts to pressure Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy into announcing probes involving his political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, and then blocking attempts from Congress to investigate.

From the start of the trial in the House, the team of seven House Democrats, led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif, took the opportunity to lay out much of the evidence in their case that the President, for the first time in U.S. history, should be convicted and removed from office.

When the Founders wrote the impeachment clause, they had precisely this type of conduct in mind,” Schiff said in his opening statement. “Conduct that abuses the power of office for a personal benefit, that undermines our national security, and that invites foreign interference in the democratic process of an election. It is the trifecta of constitutional misconduct justifying impeachment.”

Trump’s lawyers argued in response that the President had done nothing wrong, and accused Democrats of ramming a biased investigation through to the Senate based on insufficient evidence. “Never before in the history of our country has a President been confronted with this kind of impeachment proceeding in the House,” said White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, who is leading the President’s defense.
Furthermore, President Trump was accused of employing “QUID PRO QUO,” a Latin phrase which means “something for something-”an action or things that are exchanged for another action or things of more or less equal value; a substitute. The accusers said it was this that the President used to determine aid to Ukraine whose President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was asked to probe his opponent, Biden.

It is said that until such probe was done, the country would not get assistance. The Latin phrase can be likened to the Liberian sayings, “put me in the kitchen; I will put you on the table; or you do me, I do you.”

Today, this piece is not intended to do a replay of what has transpired, including yesterday’s final arguments, but to deal with how I expect this case to end tomorrow. I have followed with interest since the case commenced several days how the House of Representatives proved its case of misconduct and obstruction to Congress. It substantiated their presentation of evidence with substantiated video presentation.

Unprecedentedly, this was one case in which witnesses were not allowed, perhaps for fear by the defense that it could jeopardize their chances in the proceedings. Former Security Advisor to President Trump, John Bolton, who was a possible witness for the House, did not make it because he was not allowed. However, in the draft of a book he is writing, he corroborated the charges levied against President Trump by the House.

As I observed the proceeding, what is interesting is that some of Trump’s supporters admitted that he acted wrong, improper, but this does not warrant his removal from office. One of them said that removal from office should be done by the people and not the Senate.

Noticeably, for the Republicans who are in majority in the Senate, it is not about misconduct or obstruction to Congress, but the politics for which they would rally around “their man”, President, who is a Republican, to be acquitted. This is one of the disadvantages of majority. As it is said the majority might not be right, but the views or votes must be respected.

This is also common in elections, as the majority would always carry the day. On this issue of impeachment at bar, there is strong likelihood that, though, the House proved its case, the majority would prevail, thereby acquitting President Trump.
Whatever the situation, a precedent has now been set where there was no witness, admission, but no punishment, that others would follow tomorrow.

As it is said, “Precedent is something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind.”

I Rest My Case