Today is a history trifecta. Today is the national holiday that celebrates the accomplishements and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. Today is also exactly three years since the inauguration of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States. And today, with the release of the rules for the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump, the third impeachment trial in the history of the country is set.
This is going to be a somewhat lengthy post. First, however, I must quote the opening paragraph from
my post of November 9, 2016 to establish why I choose to take the opportunity (for perhaps only the second time since this blog began 686 posts ago) to write about what some will undoubtedly consider a departure from genealogy into politics.
"Since the inception of this blog almost four years ago, I have assiduously avoided turning it into anything even approaching a forum for my political beliefs. This blog is, however, a genealogy and family history forum AND it is preserved in book form for my sons, descendants, and relatives; as such it occasionally delves into matters of present concern because my involvement in present day events will unavoidably become matters of family history for my descendants. [By way of example, see my blog post about my experience of the events of 9-11 here.]"
On Novemer 9, 2016 I also wrote about the results of the 2016 presidential election . . .
"Fifty or a hundred years or more from now this election will be distant history. We have no idea how the Trump presidency will turn out. We can only hope that it is a net positive for the great majority of Americans, who comprise a true melting pot of various people. History and results will judge the winner of this momentous election . . . and our descendants will judge us with the hindsight of decades or centuries regarding how we stood at this time and in this place.
* * *
They say that when a person actually assumes the awesome power and responsibility of the presidency of the United States it changes him. He has such power and responsibility that it alters his perspective and his deliberation before deciding on a course of action that will affect an entire nation. Our history is replete with examples of presidential evolution in office. For the greater good of this country we can only hope that Mr. Trump is transformed by the high office to which he will ascend and that he deliberates carefully and circumspectly as he moves forward!"
Three years after the ascent of Donald J. Trump to the presidency of the United States, I truly regret having to say to my descendants that Mr. Trump has not, in my considered opinion, changed as a result of the awesome power and responsibility given to him by the American people. A litany of all the actions and statements by Mr. Trump (and the party he seemingly controls so completely) that lead me to this conclusion would be too long and would serve no purpose other than to make this post appear even more political to some. Instead, I will quote Mr. Trump himself on his repeated perception of what his ascent to the presidency means to him . . .
"I have an Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as President."
- Donald J. Trump, July 23, 2019
"More importantly, Article II allows me to do whatever I want."
- Donald J. Trump, June 16, 2019
And so the impeachment trial of Mr. Trump will begin tomorrow -- one year to the day before the next oath of office will be taken by a President of the United States, whoever he or she might be. We will see what the nature of that trial will actually become. When the trial is over and a verdict is rendered, history and the American people will judge whether or not it was fair and whether or not the truth was actually pursued. The court of public opinion and history will have the last word, but the United States Senate and the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court now have the matter before them. They have the duty and power to make sure the trial can be viewed as a pursuit of the truth based on relevant evidence presented to prove or disprove the articles of impeachment. The country and history will be watching -- even if the proceedings go until 1:00 AM as apparently now planned by Majority Leader McConnell.
On August 16, 2018, William H. McRaven, a retired four-star Navy Admiral and commander of the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command who oversaw the raid that eliminated Osama bin Laden, addressed Donald Trump in print and said in part . . .
"Like most Americans, I had hoped that when you became president, you would rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs.
A good leader tries to embody the best qualities of his or her organization. A good leader sets the example for others to follow. A good leader always puts the welfare of others before himself or herself.
Your leadership, however, has shown little of these qualities. Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.
If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be."
- Admiral (ret) William H. McRaven
The Washington Post, August 16, 2018
To my sons, my granddaughters, and whatever future descendants I might have, I want to say at this time in this place that I agree with Admiral McRaven.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Copyright 2020, John D. Tew
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
What follows are relevant excerpts from The Federalist No. 65 written by Alexander Hamilton. They are worth reading.
"A well constituted court for the trial of impeachments, is an object not more to be desired, than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties, more or less friendly, or inimical, to the accused. In many cases, it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side, or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
The delicacy and magnitude of a trust, which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders, or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction; and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.
The convention, it appears, thought the senate the most fit depository of this important trust. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion; and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.
What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body: will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement, strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry? The model, from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain, it is the province of the house of commons to prefer the impeachment; and of the house of lords to decide upon it. Several of the state constitutions have followed the example. As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments, as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government. Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?
Where else, than in the senate, could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel confidence enough in its own situation, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an individual accused, and the representatives of the people, his accusers?
* * *
[After presenting reasons why the Supreme Court should not be the place to try impeachments] These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the supreme court would have been an improper substitute for the senate, as a court of impeachments. There remains a further consideration, which will not a little strengthen this conclusion. It is this: the punishment which may be the consequence of conviction upon impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender. After having been sentenced to a perpetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honours and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed of his fame, and his most valuable rights as a citizen, in one trial, should, in another trial, for the same offence, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error, in the first sentence, would be the parent of error in the second sentence? That the strong bias of one decision, would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision? Those who know any thing of human nature, will not hesitate to answer these questions in the affirmative; and will be at no loss to perceive, that by making the same persons judges in both cases, those who might happen to be the objects of prosecution would, in a great measure, be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial. The loss of life and estate would often be virtually included in a sentence which, in its terms, imported nothing more than dismission from a present, and disqualification for a future office. It may be said, that the intervention of a jury, in the second instance, would obviate the danger. But juries are frequently influenced by the opinions of judges. They are sometimes induced to find special verdicts, which refer the main question to the decision of the court. Who would be willing to stake his life and his estate upon the verdict of a jury, acting under the auspices of judges who had predetermined his guilt?"
.jpg)
.png)
