The House Judiciary Committee launched their own chapter in the impeachment investigation, not with any material or secondhand witnesses to the alleged infractions of President Trump, but rather with three constitutional law professors to make the case that Democrats have failed to do thus far.
If Democrats need to put professors, quite literally lecturing the country, on prime-time television across cable and network news, then they’ve already lost the war of public opinion.
The public has seen all of the evidence not stonewalled by the White House. Barring the testimonies of Rudy Giuliani, Lev Parna, Igor Fruman, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton — essentially the only firsthand American witnesses other than Gordon Sondland — it’s hard to imagine that the public opinion will change, much less with a Harvard professor pontificating about a matter he only learned about the same way the rest of us did.
It’s worth noting that Republicans pulled a similar stunt during the proceedings against Bill Clinton, but even then, their legal witnesses testified in front of a subcommittee, not the full Judiciary Committee. Furthermore, they were debating the existence of an unequivocal crime, not a political one, and with the presence of forensic evidence. Also, the Republicans trying to remove Clinton eventually lost.
The case against Trump is a political charge, and the evidence is less damning than that against Clinton. But the charge is arguably more serious in the context of the presidency, and the evidence is still compelling. He clearly withheld congressionally approved aid to Ukraine while trying to convince their president to announce an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma Holdings. He likely used the aid to extort Ukraine, not out of the intention of purging corruption from the nation, but instead for his own personal political gain. That’s a cut and dry case of abuse of presidential power, a crime clearly intended by the Federalists to be rectified with impeachment.
But despite an immediate uptick in support for impeachment after the scandal initially broke in late September, polling has since stagnated. For months, the country’s been stuck in a 50-50 deadlock regarding the matter, and even after the House Intelligence Committee featured critical testimonies from Sondland and William Taylor, support has ever so slightly languished.
On paper, the crime alleged is impeachable by any metric outlined by both English common law and the framers of the Constitution. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 69, “the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust” is punishable by impeachment.
But impeachment is a political process contingent on public support, and the public hasn’t rallied around the cause, let alone in a remotely bipartisan manner. Evidence hasn’t swayed public opinion much, and given the shrill tenor of the politically motivated professors at the stand, it seems unlikely that lecturing will do any better.
It’s easy to blame Republicans on the Hill for so shamelessly lying for the president, but can you blame average voters across the country who listened to Democrats lie for three years that Trump conspired to collude with the Russian government? The Democratic impeachment demands began on day one of Trump’s presidency, and the constant chaos has thoroughly desensitized Republicans and swing-state voters to impeachment ire. If damning testimonies claiming that Trump intentionally abused his power couldn’t push public opinion, why would angry professors yelling at the country do so?
