The Aftermath: Are There Any Checks on Presidential Misconduct Left?
There was always one predetermined endpoint of President Trump’s impeachment trial, conducted before a controlling majority of his Republican loyalists in the Senate. Still, the extent which congressional Republicans have been willing to burn the proverbial house down behind them as they speed toward a politically convenient acquittal, has, nevertheless, been something of a surprise.
Last night, Senator, Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) — the likely swing vote on whether the Senate would allow witnesses to be called in the Senate trial — dispensed with pretenses his GOP colleagues have been juggling since last fall. No more deflecting. No red herring defenses. No more procedural excuse making. It boils down to this:
“We know he did it. But it doesn’t matter. We’re acquitting.”
I’m not paraphrasing by much. Here are the high points of Sen. Alexander’s statement:
“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven …. It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate. The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election….”
Alexander’s proposition is that it’s been proven by, in his words, “a mountain of evidence” that the president unlawfully withheld $400 million in U.S. Government funds to extort a foreign government to undermine the president’s electoral rival. But this “inappropriate” conduct does not merit any congressional action.
Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) reached the “so what if he did it” conclusion as well, stating:
“Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.”
There are plenty of other voices out there to discuss how this novel and wildly restrictive view of congressional checks and balances guts the balance of power contemplated by the Founders. So I’ll just pose the question: After the Senate votes to acquit Trump — whether it’s later today or next week — just what mechanisms exist anymore to check a president’s abuse of power?
- He’s immune from being charged with crimes. So take the entire justice system off the table during his term.
- On top of immunity from indictment, he can block even investigations into misconduct, blunting legislative oversight.
- Since he controls the Department of Justice, he can steer investigations and prosecutions as he sees fit, hiring allies and firing dissenters at his discretion. (As the Mueller Report demonstrated, even if he meddles in investigations and commits acts of intentional obstruction, the Department of Justice won’t comment on whether it could even give rise to charges, due to presidential immunity.)
- For any fellow wrongdoers who don’t have presidential immunity, the president has the power to pardon them.
- He can brush off any attempted congressional oversight by simply disregarding subpoenas and blocking whatever witness testimony he chooses.
- If the House opens an impeachment inquiry, he can say, “Unless I choose, no government agency has to give you documents or provide testimony. I don’t need to give a reason.” (If subpoena enforcement goes to court, he can assert, as the government is currently doing, that the courts have no jurisdiction to enforce congressional subpoenas — but more importantly, if an order to comply is issued, who could enforce it?)
- If impeachment proceedings advance to trial in the Senate, the proponents of impeachment don’t get to call any witnesses or elicit new evidence.
- Since obstruction of congress is not an impeachable offense (as the Sen. Alexander and the rest of the GOP senators are now telling us), the president can deliver a kill shot to any impeachment proceedings by simply blocking any evidence that might be unfavorable.
This is not a rhetorical question. Once the ink is dry on these proceedings, what checks on the executive are left?
