During the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings, Senator Joe McCarthy (R) was finally stopped by the question of Joseph Welch, attorney for the Army. Welch said, “At long last, sir, have you left no sense of decency?” The quote is often paraphrased as, “Have you no shame?”
After watching the actions of Congressional Republicans since Trump took office, but especially since the whistle-blower complaint, the White House release of a “reconstructed” transcript of Trump’s Ukraine phone call, and the many corroborating witnesses both regarding the call itself but more importantly about Trump’s insistence that the Ukraine commit to investigating Hunter Biden as a condition to releasing security aid funds that had been allocated by Congress, I would say to them, “Sirs, have you left no shame?”
Congressmen and Senators take an oath of office in which they commit to supporting and defending the Constitution. Their oath is not to defend the President, their political party, or anything else. They represent many constituencies but their oath is simply to support and defend the Constitution.
Since Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party through the fervent loyalty of his base, Republicans in Congress have become a craven lot, except on foreign policy matters. How have they conducted themselves during the questioning of Trump’s abuse of office? Have they defended the Constitution?
The Constitution prohibits government officials from receiving anything of value from foreign governments without the consent of Congress. Knowingly receiving the value of Russian interference in the 2016 election would be a violation of this clause and was thus a key part of the Mueller investigation. Receiving election aid in the form of Ukraine investigations of political rivals would also be an example of receiving something of value. The obstructing justice charges don’t concern this Constitutional clause but concern a violation of Federal law and thus would be impeachable.
Already with the Mueller Report, despite all the evidence of Russian contact and knowledge that Russia was interfering in the election (including his infamous public request to the Russians to find Clinton’s missing emails and publish them) and of obstruction of justice, they supported Trump’s view that he had been shown to do no wrong, and that by not indicting him, Mueller had exonerated him.
Never mind that’s not what the report said, that’s how Trump and they interpreted it, aided and abetted by A.G. Barr’s summary. Just recently, we learned that testimony at the trial of Roger Stone showed that Trump spoke directly to Stone during the campaign about WikiLeaks possible disclosure of Democratic emails obtained by Russia, despite his having said in written testimony that he remembered no such conversation. If not legal collusion, this certainly smells like an impeachable offense.
Regarding the June telephone call with the President of the Ukraine, despite the background and Trump explicitly asking for a favor, they still say Trump did no wrong. When Lt Col. Vindman who was on the call and thus had direct knowledge said that the “transcript” omitted an important reference to the Bidens and other desired investigations, they cast aspersions on him and discounted his testimony.
When one career diplomat after another came forward and testified under oath that the President was holding foreign policy hostage to personal political gain, their response has been that this is all hearsay. No one heard this from the mouth of the President.
The last statement is true, but when you have so much evidence regarding the President’s policy from various sources and stemming largely from his own personal lawyer, Giuliani, the evidence cannot be simply disregarded because it is hearsay. Especially when those with direct knowledge of the President’s position have been prevented from testifying by the President’s edict. And few with direct knowledge who have testified, such as Lt. Col. Vindman, have been vilified.
Republicans point to the fact that the President told several people that there was no quid pro quo. Given that this President lies constantly, even when there’s something real at risk, his statements clearly cannot be accepted at face value.
Except for a single utterance by Senator Romney regarding this matter, no Republican has even ventured tentative support for the idea that perhaps this might be an impeachable offense and should be looked into. The one representative who did reversed himself when it came to a vote in the House.
Senators and Representatives fume about Trump’s foreign policy actions in the Middle East, how harmful they are to the country’s interests. Here they stand up to Trump. But since they otherwise approve of his policies, they apparently see no “duty to country” reason for opposing him.
They don’t see that a man like Trump at the helm of this country is dangerous. And that he has over and over again abused the power of his office. He has even clearly stated that the Constitution lets him “do whatever he wants,” and he referred to the Constitution’s “phony” emoluments clause.
Why does Trump have such power over members of the House and especially the Senate, whose members are traditionally more independent? Because they all want to be reelected … that is clearly their main imperative, not service to the country … and his control over the party’s base is so solid that they dare not buck him or else they know they’ll find themselves with a primary challenger to Trump’s liking.
