House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn’t know how to read her audience.
The California Democrat has spent the past few weeks attempting to convince the public that impeachment is serious and necessary. The GOP, of course, disagrees, so she’s made a point of ridiculing Republican leadership for turning the Senate’s impeachment trial into a political “sham.” But public opinion is still largely divided, and Pelosi has failed to convince the other half of the electorate that she has the better argument.
She just made her argument all the more unconvincing by appointing House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff to head the team of impeachment trial managers. If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is a “partisan” and unfair juror, as Pelosi has said, then Schiff is a deliberately malignant prosecutor, as I explain here.
To significantly influence public opinion, Pelosi should have appointed independent Michigan Rep. Justin Amash instead. Amash used to be a Republican, so he would at least have the appearance of moderation. Because he is now an independent, the accusation of deliberate partisanship simply would not apply.
Amash is also in favor of impeaching Trump, but for constitutional reasons, not political ones. He believes Trump is “amoral” and “self-serving,” and that these qualities led Trump to deliberately abuse his power and prioritize his personal interests above the nation’s.
Pres. Trump’s conduct—using the office of the presidency to seek the aid of a foreign power for personal and political gain—more precisely reflects the type of conduct the Framers of the Constitution sought to remedy through impeachment than that of any president impeached prior.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) December 16, 2019
With that said, Amash could hardly be considered an unbiased actor. He voted for the Democrats’ articles of impeachment in the House, and he has regularly criticized Trump for overstepping the bounds of his authority on the Ukraine scandal and others.
But Pelosi didn’t want an unbiased actor. She wanted a convincing litigator, as she said during Wednesday’s press conference. Amash would have been that and much more. He would have made the constitutional case against Trump while using his independent status to his advantage and remaining above the partisan back-and-forth.
I might disagree with Amash’s conclusions on impeachment, but I respect the way in which he reached those conclusions. He thought through the allegations, listened to the testimonies, read the evidence, and then made up his mind. Can Schiff say the same?
Schiff will not persuade or convince anyone who is seriously hesitant or on-the-fence. But Amash could have. Amash has what Schiff lacks: common sense and reputability.
