Idaho deserves tough representation in impeachment trial
The time has come for the United States Senate to find President Donald Trump guilty or not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
To heighten the suspense and seriousness of the charges against President Trump, more damning evidence has surfaced regarding the Trump administration’s efforts to force the Ukrainian president to announce an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden, thereby damaging Biden’s candidacy for the presidency. If the Ukrainian president would announce such an investigation, then U.S. aid would be delivered to Ukraine, thus the “quid pro quo.”
With Russia applying significant pressure on Ukraine to isolate it from the United States, there can be no doubt that Trump was aiding and abetting, unwittingly or otherwise, Putin and Russia’s goal to bring the Ukraine back into its orbit. To the extent that Republicans ignore Trump’s role in the Ukraine mess, they are destroying the party’s legacy of fighting Russian autocrats, whether they be the old communists or the new strongman, Putin.
Here’s the new evidence that Trump and his administration abused his power in attempting to extract a quid pro quo in the Ukraine matter. A few days ago, MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow interviewed Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney. Parnas, hardly a model citizen, has been indicted for funneling illegal contributions to Republican candidates, and it is not unusual for those indicted to sing to the feds in hopes of receiving lighter sentences. Nor is it unusual for someone who may feel he lost the support of the Trump crowd to blow the whistle on its shenanigans. Therefore, it is critical that the Senate hear from witnesses and review evidence that can separate fact from fiction in this case.
No one can refute the fact that John Bolton, President Trump’s former National Security adviser, was close enough to the Ukraine shakedown to know who did what. His lawyers actually alluded to Bolton knowing about relevant meetings and conversations regarding the Ukraine events. Fiona Hill, the former Russia expert at the National Security Council, testified that Bolton called Rudy Giuliani a “hand grenade” who was “going to blow up everyone.”
Bolton says he will testify before the Senate if subpoenaed. Skeptics question what Bolton is up to, and some think he is more interested in selling his new book rather than sorting out the facts, but Democrats and Republicans must agree to bring Bolton to the witness stand. Admittedly, it’s a gamble for both sides. Republicans will fear Bolton’s testimony will make the case for Trump’s conviction. Democrats may question whether Bolton will level with the Senate. His longtime conservative credentials should serve as a check on those Republicans who simply don’t want to believe anything about what Trump knew or what he may have even directed. On the other hand, Democrats who question Bolton’s integrity cannot pass on the opportunity to hear his version of the story, no matter how suspect they are of his motives.
Although Parnas’ motivations can be called into question, much of his story make sense. For example, he actually met with the Ukrainian president and he asks why the highest-ranking public official in the Ukraine would meet with him if he had not been told that Parnas speaks for the president. Additionally, much of what Parnas says squares with the documents that are now public and the testimony witnesses gave in the House impeachment hearings.
In the Maddow interview, Parnas said the main lie in the Ukrainian controversy is that President Trump did not know what was going on. In Parnas’ words, “he lied” not only in denying he knew what was going on, but also in claiming he did not know Parnas.
According to Parnas, “President Trump knew exactly what was going on. He was aware of all of my movements. I wouldn’t do anything without the consent of Rudy Giuliani or the president.”
Parnas also explained how the Ukrainian president needed very public U.S. support, given the fact that Russia was breathing down his neck. That public support included having Vice President Pence at the new Ukrainian president’s inauguration. But the Pence visit was canceled, according to Parnas, to send a message to the Ukrainian president that Trump was not happy the Ukrainian president had not yet announced an investigation of Biden. When asked if Pence was aware why his trip to the inauguration was canceled, Parnas responded, “everybody was in the loop,” making it clear that Pence was also tasked with getting Ukraine to announce an investigation of Biden.
Regarding ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who was recalled from Ukraine by President Trump, Parnas claims that Trump needed to get her out of the way because she was perceived by Trump as standing in the way of getting the Ukrainian president from announcing a Biden investigation. New information has also come to light that our own government apparently put Yovanovitch under surveillance, which may be unprecedented in the diplomatic corps. It’s usually the spies of our enemies who resort to such tactics.
The people of Idaho are not on the sidelines in the midst of this constitutional crisis. Our two U.S. senators will have the opportunity to speak up for an impeachment trial that reviews the evidence and produces witnesses who can verify or prove groundless the various charges that have been leveled at the Trump administration. Unfortunately, they are members of a Republican caucus with members claiming they do not intend to approach the trial with objectivity. Sen. Lindsey Graham says he has no interest in serving as an impartial juror, and his leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, has nothing but disdain for the impeachment process and shows no interest in shedding light on the truth.
It is not too late, however, for Idaho’s two senators to approach this impeachment trial with a seriousness of purpose that their office requires at this moment in our history. Perhaps they should both be reminded of Sen. Mike Crapo’s comments when he voted to impeach President Bill Clinton when Crapo was a member of the House of Representatives and then when he voted to convict Clinton a short time later when he was a new member of the U.S. Senate.
Here’s some of Sen. Crapo’s justification for impeachment:
“Tampering with the truth-seeking functions of the law undermines our justice system and the foundations on which our freedoms lie. All Americans must abide by the rule of law, including the President of the United States who is the highest official in the land and who has the additional duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.”
Let’s hope our two senators do not forget history and are able to apply the same tough standards to Trump’s impeachment that Sen. Crapo applied to Clinton’s.