The U.S capitol building is full of exaggeratedly twisted stories in which the conflict seems contrived simply to generate drama or comedy or both. One such story is the reading of the impeachment articles against President Donald Trump, and the swearing in of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and the senators who will decide whether Trump should be removed from office.
Whereas the articles of impeachment state, that President Trump used his high powers to solicit the interference of a foreign government in the 2020 United States Presidential election through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his re-election, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage; Democrats are yet to illustrate how the President used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process.
In short, Democrats have accused the President of trying to extort a foreign leader into helping him dishonor a political rival.
And the articles of impeachment are as cathartic to read as it is to witness.
According to U.S. Rep. Alma Adams, D-Greensboro, Trump’s behavior “undermines the integrity of our elections, the dignity of the office that he holds and puts the national security at risk”.
Yet, this threatening rhetoric stemming from Democrats are not only muted in a mesh of imageries that expose the unfounded truth of the US Constitution, but a stream of betraying images also emerges to contend with the Constitution and mystify it.
Although the Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” the resolute and inflexible rudiments of the articles of impeachment in both the House of Representatives and the Senate are yet to detail what is meant by high crimes and misdemeanors.
More significantly, Harvard Law Professor Allan Dershowitz admittance, that he is participating in this impeachment trial to defend the integrity of the Constitution and to prevent the creation of a dangerous Constitution precedent, necessitates the interruption of mistrust on the part of Democrats where the Constitution is concerned. Accordingly, the Constitution’s standard for an impeachable offense of high crimes and misdemeanors does not require proof of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Clearly, a President can be impeached for committing “high Crimes and misdemeanors”, but what precisely are “high crimes and misdemeanors?
Even though the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” appears in Article II section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, it is important to reexamine the language pertaining to impeachment in the Constitution and understand the way in which language is turning reality on its head in this impeachment proceedings. Thus, within this context, high crimes and misdemeanors are effective only as a psychological component of the articles of impeachment to influence and control the minds of the American people.
The point is that, President Trump did in fact abuse the powers of the presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. President Trump betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections, yet the important question lingers : How will the articles of impeachment brought against President Trump act as a precedent if a precedent is understood as “a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on, or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts”?
Besides, several key figures in the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine have refused to provide testimony or documents in the House impeachment inquiry. Moreover, how can Senators decide the case using only the material amassed by House investigators?
While Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman believes that the framers of the Constitution “would identify President Trump’s conduct as exactly the kind of abuse of office, high crimes and misdemeanors, that they were worried about, and ultimately this would be a political process, it must be seen that this form of unsubstantiated optimism can also lead to the arrest of the Constitution as the meaning of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ varies from time to time and from place to place.
Therefore, the integrity of the Constitution in this impeachment trial must be defended at all cost. As a mark of a flourishing humanity the ‘misunderstood triumphs’ of Democrats should not be allowed to further avenge the clauses of the Constitution with a rambling inexplicable article of impeachment which can lead to nothing more, other than the complete acquittal of Mr. Trump and a more careful, vibrant response to make America and the Constitution great again.