On January 15, 2020, the 45th US President Donald Trump officially became the defendant. The second stage of impeachment of the head of state, taking place in the Senate, is called a court under the Constitution of the United States. Generally speaking, it is essentially a lawsuit. It is chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the defense is carried out by professional lawyers, and the prosecution is represented by specially appointed members of the House of Representatives (the so-called managers). Senators are a kind of jury.
If the upper house of congress (by a two-thirds majority vote) considers the president guilty, he will automatically be removed from power and transferred to the judiciary. If two-thirds of the votes are not collected or the Senate votes to dismiss the charge, the owner of the White House is deemed acquitted and he cannot be further charged with acts described in the relevant resolution of the House of Representatives.
If we continue the judicial analogy, then voting for this resolution (it contains the so-called impeachment articles) can be considered as a charge. The resolution itself is an indictment. And when this conclusion is submitted to the court (Senate), the “leader of the free world” becomes the defendant.
Generally speaking, he was supposed to be one more month ago, in December last year. Then the House of Representatives voted to impeach the president and approved the prosecution. In theory, the case should have been immediately referred to the Senate. Firstly, this is the established political tradition. And secondly, the leadership of the Democratic Party argued that the solution to the issue is urgent. After all, Donald Trump, while remaining at his post, "continues to commit a crime in front of the public and the whole world." What is this ongoing crime, the Democrats did not really explain. They only let it slip that they could not allow the head of state to be quietly re-elected for a second term. One way or another, but the opposition and the press controlled by it tried to convince voters that the procedure should be accelerated as much as possible.
But as soon as the indictment was adopted by the majority of the House of Representatives, its speaker Nancy Pelosi stated that she was “not yet ready” to submit documents to the Senate and appoint prosecution managers. She explained her turn at one hundred eighty degrees by the fact that she was not sure of the honesty of the court in the upper house. Pelosi also demanded that Republican senators coordinate with her a number of procedural issues. In particular, she wanted to oblige senators to call for questioning those witnesses (among them senior officials of the Trump administration) whom the lower house could not question. Could not, first of all, because of the rush - to force the federal employee to testify in Congress is possible only through the court. And it took time.
In fact, the majority of the House of Representatives demanded that the Senate majority do their work for them. In fairness, it should be noted that calling witnesses for trial in the Senate is much easier: the order of the presiding judge is enough. But this does not negate the fact that the preliminary investigation in the person of the lower house did not gather enough evidence and made a very crude indictment. Perhaps the Democratic senators would be able to convince several of their fellow Republicans in the course of the behind-the-scenes negotiations to vote for some procedural changes that would make the process louder and potentially dangerous for Trump, but this was prevented by direct blackmail tactics by Nancy Pelosi. And American senators do not like being blackmailed.
As a result, the upper house Republicans rallied around their leader Mitch McConnell and refused to make any concessions.
If at the very beginning of January some Republican senators allowed the possibility of calling additional witnesses, then by the middle of the month there were no people who wanted to play nobility. The fact that Pelosi made an extremely risky bet on blackmailing the Senate from the very beginning and, as a result, failed miserably, is even written by liberal media supporting impeachment. So, CNN senior editor Chris Silizza published a column on the channel’s website directly saying that the dubious plan of the speaker of the House of Representatives had failed. She underestimated the unity of the Republican Party, the resilience of Mitch McConnell, and the extent to which US senators did not like pressure on themselves.
As a result, after a month of delay in the “urgent matter,” Nancy Pelosi appointed a vote to transfer the indictment to the Senate. Such an additional vote is unprecedented, because, as mentioned above, the approval of impeachment articles always entailed an automatic transition to the upper house of Congress.
Voting took place on January 15th. As expected, the decision was adopted by a majority of votes, which were divided strictly along the party line. 227 Democrats and one independent congressman spoke in favor, 192 Republicans and one Democrat were against. Nine lawmakers did not vote, five more were absent.
On the same day, the prosecutors were officially appointed. The team was led by Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, the head of the law committee and the lower house intelligence committee, who took an active part in all impeachment events. In addition, the prosecution will be supported by three experienced lawmakers - Hakim Jeffries, Zoe Lofgren and Val Demings, as well as newcomers of the latest convocation Jason Crowe and Sylvia Garcia.
Now the senate will have to vote for a resolution approving judicial regulations. Her project, presented by McConnell, almost completely repeats the resolution adopted in 1998 (then the majority in the upper house belonged to the Democrats) during the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Apparently, the Democrats will try to impose a discussion and change the rules, but most likely, due to the cohesion of the republican majority, nothing will come of this. It is also unlikely that the process will be delayed - the so-called filibaster (a long statement by the senator, which cannot be interrupted by law) cannot be used at the Senate court, since members of the upper chamber are jurors and cannot speak out orally. All objections, protests and proposals are submitted exclusively in writing.
Managers, of course, may try to summon the witnesses they need. They can even enlist the support of the presiding judge in this matter, but still the second stage of impeachment is not an ordinary court. Here, the chairman is not a king and a god, as in an ordinary criminal or civil process, but rather a kind of moderator and interpreter of constitutional norms. Any decision can be blocked by a simple majority. In the same way, senators can change the rules of hearings at any time or stop them altogether. So ultimately, the final vote is all. To make it unfavorable for Donald Trump, the Democrats need to entice twenty Republicans to their side, which in the current situation seems almost impossible.
As historical practice shows, only his own party can bury the president of the United States.
To convince her, it will take something very substantial. But the Democrats have nothing significant on Trump. For almost four years now they have been searching and will never find. Therefore, the most ridiculous arguments are used. Speaking before the House of Representatives vote, Nancy Pelosi said: “Who should be the president should be decided by the citizens of the United States, not Vladimir Putin,” clearly hinting that the Democratic Party has still not dropped the charge of the White House owner that he is the "agent of the Kremlin." In response to this passage, the Republican minority leader in the lower house, Kevin McCarthy, objected: “Yes, the fate of the presidency should be decided by American voters, not Madame Speaker.”
Democrats' attempts to press Donald Trump are becoming more absurd and desperate every day. So, Pelosi suggested checking the intractable Mitch McConnell "for Russian connections." Of course, this did not frighten the experienced republican politician in any way, but only completely dispelled the opposition’s hopes to put together a bipartisan coalition against Trump. Such a coalition was theoretically still possible in 2017, but today the liberals themselves have made it impossible.
Against the democrats are playing the latest events around Iran. Trump, no doubt, was playing a dangerous game with the ayatollahs, and at some point it seemed that he could start another big war. The leadership of the Democratic Party decided that finally life itself will prove the complete worthlessness of Donald as the head of a superpower. But the non-systemic politician again emerged from the difficult situation as the winner. Even Ronald Reagan himself could not crank something even remotely resembling the assassination of Iranian general Suleimani.
All accusations against the White House administration in violation of international standards and risky actions in the explosive region are undoubtedly true. But the fact of the matter is that Trump showed the nullity of these international norms. He did not make them such - he only held a "presentation". As a result, the United States demonstrated its impunity, and the president demonstrated its instincts and player skills for the most part. In fact, all the knowledge and experience of foreign policy gurus turned out to be insignificant in comparison with his understanding of the new world reality.
Is it dangerous? Fearfully? Undoubtedly. It is only in the eyes of the American voter that this creates an attractive image of the decisive and able to think outside the box Supreme Commander. And therefore, the opposition, seeking to remove him from power both through impeachment and through elections, looks pitiful.
The only opponent of Trump who is now rubbing his hands is Joe Biden. In the near future, all of his main opponents on democratic primaries will be forced to substantially cut plans for their election campaigns. They should be in the Senate and consider the case of the president, and not meet with voters and political sponsors.
But to Biden, the current situation may turn out sideways. If Republicans decide not to confine themselves to formal review of impeachment articles and call on witnesses who benefit from it (including the son of the former vice president, Hunter Biden, and former high-ranking officials of the Obama administration), this will destroy the reputation of Uncle Joe and his family. In the end, he himself can be summoned for questioning. Of course, this is against decency. But who today in Washington thinks about decency!
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.