The number of House members who support an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump has risen to 108 following former Special Counsel Robert Mueller III’s daylong testimony last week.
Of the 108, 107 are Democrats and one – U.S. Rep. Justin Amash – is an independent.
Amash had been a Republican member of the Freedom Caucus until he announced his support for an impeachment inquiry. What changed his mind? He said he read Mueller’s report on Russian interference and concluded Trump has “engaged in impeachable conduct.”
No other Republican official has spoken out against Trump, either because they do not believe he has done anything wrong or because they know that taking on a president with the support of 90 percent of GOP voters is political suicide.
Regardless of the facts.
Mueller said during his testimony, and in his 440-page report, that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election in a “sweeping and systematic fashion.”
The Russians made numerous contacts with the campaign, he said. The campaign welcomed their help. No one reported these contacts or interference to the FBI. They lied to cover it up. In at least 10 instances, Trump attempted to block the investigation. Into Russian interference.
More than 1,000 former federal prosecutors have signed a statement explaining that, in their professional judgment and based on the facts described in Mueller’s report, Trump would have been criminally charged with obstruction of justice if he were not the president.
Not included in the report is the evidence that Trump was behind the campaign finance crimes for which his attorney Michael Cohen went to prison. Or Trump’s use of his office to enrich himself and his family and the possibility that he has based U.S. foreign policy on those personal considerations.
How does this not warrant an impeachment inquiry? Not a vote on impeachment. An inquiry into the facts to determine if there is a cause for an impeachment vote. In other words, members of Congress doing their jobs.
But local Democratic Congress members are a study in contrasts.
U.S. Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-Garden City) said in a tweet last Wednesday that Congress “must begin impeachment proceedings.”
“Once again, Mueller laid out extensive evidence of obstruction by the president and made it clear that the president hasn’t been exonerated,” she tweeted.
This echoed her call for an impeachment inquiry in May.
“For over two years the president has systematically dismantled our democracy and defied the rule of law,” Rice said in another tweet. “This cannot stand. Congress has a moral obligation to put our politics aside and take action. We need to start impeachment proceedings. The president is not above the law.”
To which, we say amen.
U.S. Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-Glen Cove), on the other hand, said he is not ready to support an impeachment inquiry.
He was quoted by The New York Times as answering “Not at this time” when asked about an impeachment inquiry.
When contacted by Blank Slate Media, he said he shared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s concern that Democrats must have “an airtight case” before possibly beginning impeachment proceedings.
Suozzi said he is engaged in and supports the continued investigation by his colleagues on the House Judiciary, Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Oversight, Financial Services, and Ways and Means committees, the latter of which he is a member.
“While Congress has a constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the executive branch,” Suozzi said, “we must not be distracted from doing our jobs as legislators and work to solve the problems we face in our country.”
Sorry, Congressman, but the No. 1 job facing legislators today is holding the executive branch accountable for possible illegal and unconstitutional acts. And you can still work on legislation – most of which will be bottled up by the GOP majority in the Senate.
This is not the first time Suozzi has shied away from attempts to hold Trump accountable for possible wrongdoing.
Unlike Rice, Suozzi, 56, did not join fellow Democrats in filing a lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of violating the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states.
For a candidate who ran for Congress based on what he said was a record of fighting “powerful interests,” we found this very odd.
Suozzi, who served as Nassau County executive from 2001 to 2009, has maintained that he wanted to focus on his work with the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus in developing common-sense solutions.
Another explanation for Suozzi’s tiptoeing around the issue of holding Trump accountable may have been offered during a recent appearance on “Morning Joe.”
When questioned why he joined the Problem Solvers Caucus in supporting a border bill without language that would ensure the humane treatment of detainees, Suozzi explained, “I’m in a D plus one district, my district can go either way.”
D plus one is political insider talk for a district that favors Democrats but very slightly. And, Suozzi implied, he might lose his seat if he supported language to ensure the humane treatment of detainees.
Suozzi went on to say that funding was running out for border services and action had to be taken.
His comments came after a well-publicized visit to the southern border in which he made an impassioned plea for the protection of detainees — after he voted for funding legislation without the protections.
Suozzi said he is now fighting hard for those protections. Let us know, Congressman, when you get them.
Suozzi is not the only Democrat who appears to be making political calculations in not supporting an impeachment investigation.
In fact, virtually the entire leadership of the party beginning with Pelosi has yet to sign on as well as moderate Democrats, many of whom are in competitive districts.
Unlike Republicans, the Democrats acknowledge the role politics plays in explaining their unwillingness to begin an impeachment inquiry.
They point to polls that show most Americans do not support an impeachment inquiry and a Republican majority in the Senate that they say would not find Trump guilty even if the House voted to impeach him.
They also cite their concerns that Democrats would lose the House if they held impeachment hearings and that Trump would be emboldened if the Senate did not convict him – especially if he used that not guilty vote to win re-election. Those are real concerns.
But they ignore the lessons of the Watergate investigation, which had even less support at the time than there is now for a Trump impeachment investigation.
Public hearings uncovered information that changed the minds of the public and congressional members then. If not, Richard Nixon would have finished out his second term.
The Democrats have a sworn duty to uphold the law and ensure that no one is above the law. They should do their jobs. If the facts warrant it, House members should then vote for Trump’s impeachment and let Republican senators explain their votes if they fail to convict.
Getting out of their defensive crouch and playing some offense might just help the party in taking the Senate.
It would certainly fulfill their responsibilities under the Constitution.
