The panelists take the stage in the SUB ballroom for the Civil Counterpoints Campus Conversation Series. Photo by Reece Nations.
Texas Tech University’s Civil Counterpoints Conversation Series held an event called “We The People: Impeachment and Constitutional Crisis” on Nov. 13 in the Red Raider Ballroom of the Student Union Building. The discussion, part of a series designed to encourage respectful dialogue about polarizing topics, was coincidentally held on the same day as the first impeachment hearing in the House of Representatives.
The impeachment inquiry pertains to the motivations behind President Donald Trump’s request to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for an investigation into Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine, according to Fox News. Biden, son of Democratic Presidential hopeful and former Vice President Joe Biden, was a board member of Burisma Holdings, a prominent Ukrainian natural gas producer, from 2014 until earlier this year.
The discussion between the event’s four panelists was moderated by Erik Bucy, professor of Strategic Communication at Texas Tech’s College of Media and Communication. Bucy also relayed audience questions to the panelists that were submitted through Twitter.
Presidential impeachment was examined in a variety of contexts during the program. Historical, legal and political aspects of the impeachment process were all fleshed-out and broken down by the panel.
Nancy Beck Young, history professor at the University of Houston, had observed that morning’s hearing while working at Texas Tech’s Southwest Special Collections Library.
“My take is— for those who have followed the matter closely— probably not much new (information) was learned,” Young said on-stage during the event. “And I think that’s true whether you’re right, left or center.”
Those who are not familiar with the current state of affairs in the President’s impeachment saga were probably unlikely to watch the hearing as it was happening on that day, she said. Soundbites from the hearing that are broadcasted to the public after the fact are a more likely information source for casual audience members.
However, this scenario presents its own complications in how the hearings are presented, Young said. The context of these soundbites can be manipulated by the news media organization that is presenting them, which might influence one’s perception of the events.
“What one learns from those soundbites will probably depend upon whether one is tuned into network television, or the cable (infotainment) channels,” she said.
Young’s sentiments of how media outlets go about their political coverage were critical but not unjustified, Tom Sell, managing partner and co-founder of Combust, Sell & Associates, said during the program. Sell expressed relief that the inquiry process was moving forward, one way or another.
At the very least, the hearings will keep the public updated about what President Trump is specifically being accused of, Sell said. By having these statements in the official congressional record, the facts will be revealed and falsehoods circulating the matter can be thoroughly quashed.
“(Politician’s) words and actions will start to become more accountable, more transparent,” he said. “That’s part of our democratic process and for the good of order, I think.”
Sell’s impression of the public’s view of the inquiry was one of political fatigue, he said. When discussing the possibility of impeachment with numerous individuals, Sell said many already seem exhausted by partisan bickering.
“They’ve just had enough,” he said. “Their question is, ‘Why isn’t Congress worrying about this or that, the issues that are important to me? Why are they so worried about this impeachment proceeding?’”
Although Democrats only recently began to mobilize on the impeachment probe, it is hard to imagine it was not a premeditated maneuver, Sell said. Much of the Democratic establishment had been wanting an impeachment investigation ever since Trump’s inauguration in Jan. 2017.
After an inquiry is heard in the House, the Representatives must then vote on whether the evidence garnered justifies conducting a trial in the Senate, John Watts, professor in the Texas Tech School of Law, said at the event. If two-thirds of the Senate vote in favor of impeachment, the President must then be removed from office.
The House’s Constitutional powers give the body the sole power to draft articles of impeachment against a sitting President, Watts said. However, only the Senate holds the authority to facilitate a President’s removal.
“The Constitution is really crystal clear on a couple big issues with impeachment,” he said. “(Impeachment) is similar to an indictment in a criminal case. (The House) determines whether or not there’s been a high crime or misdemeanor sufficient, in their opinion, to have a trial in the Senate.”
It is likely that voters in Nov. 2020 will be the ones to have the final say in Trump’s fate, Watts said. Members of Congress each take the constitutional duties bestowed to them by their office seriously but are naturally inclined to vote in a manner that appeases their constituency first and foremost.
Without an impeachment vote, Congress might be unintentionally condoning Trump’s actions, Mark McKenzie, professor of Political Science at Texas Tech, said during the program. This new precedent would allow any future Presidents to order investigations into political rivals with impunity.
In spite of this, an equally dangerous precedent will be set if articles of impeachment are drafted after every instance of disagreement between the Executive and Legislative branches, he said. Institutional processes of this magnitude cannot not be undermined by partisanship.
“I think it’s just natural to expect negativity in a democracy,” McKenzie said. “If it ends up being a partisan process… I don’t think that necessarily says anything damaging to about our democracy. As long as we have an election next year, the voters get to decide on what happened.”
Regardless of one’s inherent political biases, the inquiry only reinforces one’s initial viewpoints, McKenzie said. Unless new evidence comes to light, very few minds on either side of the aisle are likely to be changed.
Party-line votes, while evidence of a divided public, do not translate to a dysfunctional democracy, he said. In his view, nothing is inherently wrong with letting political discourse play out through rule-of-law institutional processes.
“I think one of the big concerns about the Trump Administration is his inability to professionally deal with people who don’t agree with him,” McKenzie said. “That can really cause havoc in the rest of a President’s administration.”
About Reece Nations, Managing Editor
