The Trump trial has been draining.
Today it has also become depressing as I witness the abandonment of integrity.
Why do I say this? In this moment, because I read that Republican Senators Rob Portman and Lamar Alexander, say they will vote "no" on having witnesses. They arrive at this decision even though they acknowledge that the President did indeed use the power of his office by holding up duly authorized aid to try to get the President of Ukraine to announce an investigation of his principal opponent, Joe Biden,. A charge Trump has repeatedly denied. In other words, they acknowledge he has lied in addition to having done what the Impeachment charge states.
And beyond all that he has sought to cover it up.
These two Senators explain their decision to vote "no" by in essence saying the evidence of his guilt is so clear to them that witnesses would not add anything to it even if they confirm what has been alleged.
They assert that while the President's actions were "inappropriate", they do not rise to the level of being an impeachable offense.
For me this is incomprehensible. If this isn't an impeachable "abuse of power" what is?
I search for an analogue in Corporate life which presents an example of the abuse of power for personal benefit--and not that of the institution.
Imagine a CEO of a company learns that a subordinate employee is poised to disclose an act of serious sexual impropriety on his part. The CEO goes to the employee promising a big promotion in return for his not making the disclosure.
The Board of Directors learns of this. The CEO denies it happened. Do you think any Board Member believing the allegation was true would describe this as "inappropriate" and stop there? That CEO would be fired.
But what if some board members were uncertain of the truth of the allegation? After all the CEO is denying he made this proposition. Now, the Board learns there were two first hand witnesses to the CEO's conversation with the employee. Do you think the Board would decline to hear from these witnesses? Of course they wouldn't.
The stated positions of Senators Alexander and Portman fly in the face of all I have learned, believe and tried to honor when it comes to ethical behavior. At a minimum, they should have sought first hand witnesses to confirm or deny the charges of the House of Representatives.
Earlier today, I read something Teddy Roosevelt said in response to sharp criticism he received for having asked Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House in October, 1901. He was affirming his conviction that he did the right thing.
"I say that I am 'sure' this is the right solution. Of course I know that we see through a glass dimly and, after all, I may be wrong; but if I am then all my thoughts and beliefs are wrong, and my whole way of looking at life is wrong. At any rate, as long as I am in public life, however short a time that may be, I am in honor bound to act up to my beliefs and convictions".
Roosevelt speaks for me at this dark moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment