The case for impeachment

The evidence against the president when it comes to impeachment is compelling.


Maddie Beischel

The evidence against the president when it comes to impeachment is compelling.

Jack Bensing , Writer

Politicians have riled up the country for months with cases for and against the impeachment of President Trump. If one unbiasedly looks at the evidence and the facts, the case for both articles of impeachment is a lot more compelling than the opposition’s premise. 

The Democrats in the House of Representatives brought up two articles: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. With the first charge, Trump was accused of pressuring the Ukraine to dig up damaging information on Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. 

In doing so, Trump withheld 400 million dollars of military aid to the Ukraine as well as holding up a White House meeting that Ukrainian president Zelensky wanted. According to the Articles of Impeachment, the definition of abuse power is benefiting oneself instead of, in this case, the good of the country. Trump is guilty of abuse of power based on the following pieces of evidence.

Since Biden is running for president, finding dirt on Biden would benefit Trump’s reelection and not the country as a whole. That alone justifies the abuse of power charge and the counter arguments seem unconvincing. 

Opponents of impeachment will argue that Trump eventually released the aid to the Ukraine. However, they forget that an attempted crime is still a crime. If a person attempts to commit a murder, it is still a crime. The same principles apply to the impeachment of President Trump.

Next, the obstruction of Congress charge has three main points of justification. According to the Articles of Impeachment, Trump directed the White House staff, as well as other executive branch agencies, to not comply with congressional subpoenas. It is illegal to not comply with a congressional subpoena. Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the “sole power of impeachment.” Defying congressional subpoenas hinders the House of Representatives from having the sole power of impeachment.

 The sole power of impeachment means the House of Representatives has the right to force virtually anyone to testify in front of Congress in order to figure out whether the president is innocent or guilty. Trump actively obstructed this principle in several instances while the House was trying to conduct impeachment proceedings. During the impeachment process, for example, Trump explicitly said he was defying congressional subpoenas.

“We’re fighting all the subpoenas,” Trump said. “ I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Some Republican representatives have tried to argue otherwise. Representative Doug Collins from Georgia, for example, argued the Democrats in the house were acting like children during impeachment arguments for bringing up the obstruction of Congress charge.

“Obstruction of congress, as I’ve said before, is like a bunch of petulant children saying we didn’t get our way,” Collins said.

As seen above, the opposing arguments mostly consist of name-calling and lack facts and substance. Calling people names who support impeachment is not effective in getting people to agree with the opposition.

Republicans in the House seem to gloss over explicitly mentioned facts in the constitution. “The sole of impeachment” means that the House of Representatives has the power to subpoena witnesses. Not complying with subpoenas infringes on the House of Representatives’ right to the sole power of impeachment.

When the opposition lacks facts, they tend to point to how the process of impeachment was conducted by Democrats. This merely seems to be a distraction from the actual facts of the impeachment. 

When the focus is on the facts, the evidence is compelling in favor of impeachment on both charges. When the Senate completes its trial duties, conviction should be strongly considered.

Granted, the prospects of 20 Republicans voting with the Senate’s 47 Democrats is unlikely. Given all the evidence laid out above, one might ask why the Republicans in the Senate would vote against conviction anyway.

The answer to that question leads us to the political realities of the 21st century. Every single member of Congress needs to play to their respective political bases, or they risk getting voted out of office.

It does not matter how much eye-popping evidence is in favor of the conviction of President Trump. Republicans will always vote on the side of President Trump. To prove this, there are several polls that have come out where the president’s approval among Republicans is above 90 percent. If a Republican in the Senate voted for conviction of President Trump, he/she would be voting against at least 90 percent of the views within his/her own party. If that is not political suicide, what is? A Republican voting in favor of conviction will simply never happen.

However, if impeachment in the Senate is about the facts rather than politics, then the choice is fairly clear. If everyone in the Senate turns a blind eye to politics and getting re-elected to their respective offices, conviction of the President would be inevitable.

If the Senate fails to convict the president, the senate will have failed to address a growing national security concern in President Trump. Throughout Trump’s reign, there has been controversies left and right. From his treatment of Russia to his Iranian policy, these national security controversies have plagued his presidency. 

The withholding of aid to the Ukraine is yet another controversy where Trump has put our national security at risk. With impeachment, the Senate has the opportunity to end a plagued presidency once in for all. It must be done.