Russell Arben Fox: Exercising judgment means taking impeachment process seriously

Dear Senator Moran,

With the revelations from President Trump’s former National Security Advisor John Bolton filling the news, I — along with many of your constituents — urge you to vote to allow the House impeachment managers to call the witnesses they believe are necessary to their case. Hearing from Bolton directly is a good reason for this, but there are others as well.

Obviously no one can approach this impeachment process from perfect neutrality; the political agendas at work have to be acknowledged. Still, the oath that you took at the beginning of the trial, to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws,” points out something important. It acknowledges that “the Constitution” and “the laws” are not always the same thing.

In the two previous presidential impeachment trials in American history, the House investigation concluded that the president had committed a criminal offense: in the case of President Andrew Johnson, of violating a federal law, and in the case of President Bill Clinton, of lying under oath during a legal proceeding.

In the case of President Trump, however, the House has brought charges of “abuse of power” and “obstructing Congress.” The president’s defense team is arguing that you can’t meet the Constitution-required threshold of “high crimes and misdemeanors” without a specific criminal law having been broken. Experts will tell you that’s not true, considering the history of the phrase. In practice, it makes perfect sense to say that President Trump abused his role as president, and thus warrants being convicted under the articles of impeachment, solely because of how he did his job (specifically, how Trump tried to get Ukranian President Zelensky to do his own private political bidding during the infamous phone call). But whether such abuse warrants impeachment, a formal censure from the Senate (such that Clinton ultimately received), or total acquittal, is a judgment call, and not just a matter of looking up specific laws.

A year ago, when you voted against approving Trump’s use of non-appropriated money as an “emergency” action, you wrote about your fear of an “all-powerful executive,” and about how “the ends don’t justify the means.” I don’t presume to know what that vote indicates in regards to the current impeachment trial, but I do assume it means that you take your role as someone called upon to exercise judgment seriously. (At the time, you wrote about using your “understanding of history,” your “intellect,” and your “gut.” That’s a good list!)

Exercising judgment seriously means taking the impeachment process itself, whatever its limitations, seriously. And that means, presumably, allowing the House prosecutors (and Trump’s defenders) to call witness, just as any attorneys would do in any normal trial.

Yes, I know this isn’t a “normal” trial. Few things, if anything, are “normal” in the Trump era. There is entirely possible to criticize every aspect of this whole process. But for better or worse, it is the process that we have; the oaths have been taken, and the final act of this drama is upon us. Lacking any clear-cut legal standards, judgment is called for — and judgment requires letting everyone perform their constitutional role in this trial to the fullest.

Some in your own party’s leadership would undermine the witness-dependent parts of this process, saying they’re just being “honest” about the “sham” impeachment. They think they’re just “cutting through the nonsense.” But they aren’t. Instead, voting to speed things up without witnesses is a failure to show the mutual respect which good judgment depends upon. I think you’re better than that, Senator Moran. So vote accordingly, please.