Transparency Matters
By Rep. Dusty Johnson
Since I joined the U.S. House of Representatives in January, I’ve done my best to steer clear of the political circus we see on a daily basis in Washington. Instead I’ve worked successfully with my colleagues to pass legislation preventing child abuse and making it easier for Americans to save for school and retirement. I’ve been laser focused on passing the United States Mexico and Canada Trade Agreement, moving forward welfare reform, and implementing the 2018 Farm Bill.
But I just have to say—the impeachment process unfolding in the House over the last several weeks should cause pause for all members of Congress and the American people.
Some of my colleagues are for impeachment and others of us are opposed, but we should all admit that by its very nature, impeachment is emotional, taxing, and divisive.
Let’s remember – some are seeking to remove our duly elected president from office. That is no small thing. This is changing the trajectory of American history. Given how contentious and how important this proceeding is, members of Congress have a special obligation to play by the rules. We need a process that is open, sound, and fair. Congress is failing at that special obligation.
First, the Speaker has launched impeachment without a vote of the legislative body. This is unprecedented. Members have been denied their authority, their voice, and their opportunity to be on the record. Let us be clear: under the Constitution, the authority to launch impeachment rests with the U.S. House of Representatives, not with the Speaker of the House or the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
Second, this proceeding has not been open and transparent. Instead, members have been denied access to witness testimony, there is no live feed or TV coverage like we’ve seen during past impeachment proceedings, and Republicans are being removed from committee hearings. The result is that Americans and most members of Congress are not getting all the facts.
Finally, this proceeding has not been fair. In the past, presidents have been allowed to have legal counsel present. Counsel had an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The accused had an opportunity to examine the evidence and prepare a defense rather than battle secondhand accounts of closed-door testimony selectively leaked to the media.
Two hundred and twenty-eight of my colleagues have announced they are ready to impeach the president even though the evidence hasn’t been fully gathered yet, and in any case, we haven’t been allowed to review it. How in the world is that fair?
Elections matter. Transparency matters. Due process matters. Faith in our Constitution and institutions matter. As I said, Congress should live up to its special obligation. Our country deserves nothing less.
###
I don’t agree with Dusty on every single thing, but when he says: “the Speaker launched impeachment without a vote of the legislative body. This is unprecedented… under the Constitution, the authority to launch impeachment rests with the U.S. House of Representatives, not with the Speaker of the House or the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee”
He’s dead on. Few liberals bother to deny it. Rather, they toss out some version of that age-old playground reproof: “You started it!” Where does that reasoning lead us? Over a cliff. It’s a blame game all the way down.
When Dusty says: “this proceeding has not been open and transparent. Instead, members have been denied access to witness testimony, there is no live feed or TV coverage like we’ve seen during past impeachment proceedings, and Republicans are being removed from committee hearings. The result is that Americans and most members of Congress are not getting all the facts.”
He’s 100% correct. And when Dusty says: “In the past, presidents have been allowed to have legal counsel present. Counsel had an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The accused had an opportunity to examine the evidence and prepare a defense rather than battle secondhand accounts of closed-door testimony selectively leaked to the media. Two hundred and twenty-eight of my colleagues have announced they are ready to impeach the president even though the evidence hasn’t been fully gathered, and in any case, we haven’t been allowed to review it.”
There’s no denying these facts. Dems just don’t care. Their minds are made up. They’ve been working to undermine & oust Trump since before he was inaugurated. I’m not saying they lack reasons. Smart liberals can rattle off a whole list of sins: bad stuff Trump did before 2016 & bad stuff he’s done since. Perhaps Trump will be fired, if not this year, then in 2020. Under God, the people rule. But it’s *not* about Ukraine. I’ve yet to meet the person who says: “Gee, I thought Trump was doing a TERRIFIC job… until he asked Ukraine’s leaders who pressured them to drop the Biden corruption case.”
Instead of pretending to be aghast, appalled, & apoplectic over a phone call, honest liberals would shrug & say: “Yeah, Ukraine is small potatoes. I just hate the S.O.B. & want him gone regardless.”
Great speech.
Like most criminals, the Democrats in DC like to do things in the dark so there is less of a chance of being caught.
In a world where everyone is treated as if they aren’t above the law Hillary would be in jail and Obama would have been impeached.
Dusty, if you are appalled by all of this and I am guessing you are appalled at what Adam Schiff is doing, I am wondering why you are one of the 23 Republicans who has failed to co-sponsor House Resolution 630 that calls for the censure of Adam Schiff?
I sometimes wonder if you are actually representing the will of South Dakota voters.
You’ll be happy to know that on Facebook Dusty said he was voting in support of the resolution tonight.
Thanks. Not a Spacedbook guy.
*Spybook
Dugger,
If in one breath, Dusty is saying follow process on impeachment and criticizing Dem’s who have announced support before the process even starts, it seems quite hypocritical to be co-sponsoring censure before that evidence has been presented.
Personally, I think only members of the House Ethics committee should be sponsoring/cosponsoring that resolution to allow all people to present accusations and Schiff to defend himself (due process applies to all, not just people we like) before one announces he has already made his mind up.
Like FOE said, at some point, someone has to stop justifying what they do by saying “you started it” and return to normal order.
Not sure where you are going with this, but the Republicans have been working a resolution. Mr. Schiff has the opportunity to defend himself if he wants at that time. This is not the current impeachment process that has been turned on its head and due process having been done away with.
Dugger, I t’s simple: if you think it improper for Democrats to sign onto impeachment before the case has been presented (as Dusty articulated) and Trump/Republicans have had a chance to rebut, it is equally improper to sign onto censure before the case has been presented and Schiff has had a chance to rebut. Unless of course you think rules only apply to the other side.
Dusty is at least being consistent and standing up for order, due process, and fairness for all. Just not who he agrees with.
Um, how is sponsoring a resolution to censure not giving Schiff a chance to rebuff? Someone has to sponsor the thing. It is not like a censure actually means anything. I believe Trump has been censured. I believe you are comparing Apples and Samsungs. BTW, since Dusty has said he will vote in favor, is he no longer consistent?
Dugger,
1) Yes, someone has to sponsor it and there were sponsors who were intimately and directly involved in the evidence.
2) If censure doesn’t “mean anything,” why would you be willing to make a definitive judgment on Dusty (“I sometimes wonder if you are actually representing the will of South Dakota voters”) something meaningless?
3) He is being perfectly consistent.
3a) He is calling on Democrats not to pass judgment until process is followed (a vote by the entire House).
3b) He didn’t judgment on Schiff until process is followed. His vote IS part of the process.
I get disagreeing with Dusty. I’m not impressed you are doing a Pelosi and just taking a shot to take a shot.
It should cause pause for Dusty Johnson when a President calls the Emolument Clause of the U.S. Constitution… phoney. But it won’t. Johnson just doesn’t get it.