Since the beginning of his presidency, Trump has made a plethora of questionable decisions and taken quite a range of actions that might not coincide with the existing code of ethics or even common sense. Therefore, the doubt concerning his legitimacy as a president, that is, the person who represents the U.S. on a global political level, has been brought into questioning by multiple people (Horst 74). However, Trump’s 2019 conversation and the pressure that he allegedly put on the president of Ukraine can be considered the tipping point at which Trump’s abuse of power was used against him as the basis for his impeachment. Despite the reasonability of the statements made by the House of Representatives, the impeachment was repealed, whereas Trump resumed his presidency after the voting results were made public.
In retrospect, the process of impeachment was rather short despite the controversy and multiple complications that made the entire case quite entangled. The impeachment process started on September 24 and was based on the charges of the abuse of power and the obstruction of Congress (Smith and McClean 13). In addition, the President was accused of several cases of bribery and fraud, which aggravated the situation and created a greater potential for the impeachment to be executed. However, after the voting on the first charge took place, the results revealed that Trump was acquitted with a vote balance of 230-197, which can be considered a rather narrow escape. As far as the second charge was concerned, the accusation of the abuse of power was supported by 198 voters, whereas 229 participants concluded that Trump was innocent on account of the charges in question (Smith and McClean 13).
Exploring the political context of the impeachment claims and the accusations that Trump had to face, one should mention the fact that the President abused his political power in the pursuit of personal gains despite the presence of a threat to national security. Namely, since Ukraine has been in a military confrontation with the Russian Federation, the specified gesture could be seen as the means of coercing the Ukrainian president into making the decisions that could have potentially led to the detriment of Ukraine, yet would have provided Trump with additional opportunities for winning the next elections. Namely, it was stated that Trump persuaded the Ukrainian leader to locate the information that could be used to compromise Joe Biden, the representative of the Democratic Party, who would run for the office in the 2020 elections (Horst 69). As far as the obstruction to Congress is concerned, Trump’s attempt at obfuscating the congressional inquiry process by rejecting the idea of collaborating with Congress served as the premise for the second accusation.
Although the allegations concerning Trump’s use of his influence on the Ukrainian president to destroy Biden’s reputation in the next elections was proven, the resulting acquittal of the specified crime was rather expected since the line between the use of foreign-government-based research and the attempt at slandering a political opponent was quite blurred in the case in point. In fact, since the case did not represent any false information that could potentially ruin Biden’s reputation, Trump’s statement concerning the hearing being used as a pretext for his impeachment could possibly be seen as legitimate. Overall, the case has left both parties involved in this controversial situation in a quite unflattering light. Moreover, the case has shown that the political tension within the U.S. reached its pinnacle, with the Democrats and the Republicans resorting to desperate measures to seize the power.
Although the impeachment was launched based on the controversial episode during which Trump attempted at affecting the decisions of the Ukrainian president by threatening to withhold the military aid seemed rather legitimate, the voting results led to Trump staying in power. Although the described course of events might seem unfair given the allegations against Trump and the conspicuous ethical issues in his conversation with the Ukrainian president, the decision can be considered valid given the fact that there is quite a little evidence proving that Trump actually made an illegal action.
The implications of the impeachment outcomes, in turn, are rather dubious. On the one hand, the trust toward Donald Trump seems to have been undermined due to the multiple allegations concerning the strategy that he used to coerce the Ukrainian president into following the suggested course of actions. In addition, the rumors about the specified incident being linked to Trump’s attempt at gaining American citizens’ votes in the next election may affect Trump’s prestige and power negatively. However, currently, the main outcome of the investigation and the final decision includes undermined trust toward the President in American citizens. Therefore, the impeachment, even though reversed, has affected the way in which the relationships between the American government and U.S. citizens develop. While the verdict in Trump’s favor can be interpreted as a short-term victory, the long-term outcomes are likely to lead to prioritizing the ideas promoted by the Democrats.
Works Cited
Horst, Patrick. “The Politics of Removal: The Impeachment of a President.” Mobilization, Representation, and Responsiveness in the American Democracy. Palgrave Macmillan, 2020, pp. 63-104.
Smith, Sheila A., and Charles T. McClean. “The Finale for Abe-Trump Alliance Management?” Comparative Connections, vol. 21, no. 3, 2020, pp. 11-156.