Joseph Sabino Mistick: The American treasure of impeachment |
Joseph Sabino Mistick, Columnist

Joseph Sabino Mistick: The American treasure of impeachment

Joseph Sabino Mistick
Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, and National Security Council aide Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman are sworn in to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, Nov. 19 during a public impeachment hearing of President Trump.

The impeachment of a president of the United States is serious business, but the fact that it is even an option should make every American proud. It can be gut wrenching, but this ability to call our most powerful leader to task is proof of the even more powerful role of the American people.

As our Constitution says, “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

As our nation was being imagined by men who were still stinging from the power of the British king, it was important to protect Americans from leaders who go astray. Alexander Hamilton believed that impeachment would provide necessary protection “from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

Since then, Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton have been impeached by the House of Representatives and referred to the Senate for trial, and impeachment has been used more than 60 other times, mostly for federal judges.

Some of President Donald Trump’s supporters have argued that impeachment is unnecessary, since there is a presidential election next year and the people can simply vote him out then if they believe it is warranted. That argument was also made in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention and rejected for a more direct and timely remedy.

Virginia’s George Mason carried the day when he asked, “Shall any man be above justice?” And Massachusetts delegate Elbridge Gerry assured the delegates that Congress was up to the task, saying, “A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.”

So here we are again, immersed in a solemn spectacle in which Americans are called into the public arena to testify about one of the most powerful leaders on earth. Regardless of your politics, impeachment should inspire awe.

All of the witnesses so far were appointed by Trump and have worked with him. He ordered those who are still with the administration to refuse to testify, and they all knew that he would use his bully pulpit to insult and humiliate them if they showed up anyways. But they honored their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is a perfect example. Appearing in uniform, displaying the Combat Infantry Badge and Purple Heart that he earned fighting for us in Iraq, he showed us the best of America.

Forty years ago, Vindman’s father escaped the religious oppression of the Soviet Union to build a better life for his three sons in America. Alexander and his twin brother went on to join the military, and both ended up working in the White House.

It would have been easier for the young officer to look the other way when he suspected that the president had done something wrong, but he knew that his duty is to the nation and not to the man. He stepped up.

And in his opening statement, he assured his father that everything would be OK, that he knew how to be a good American, telling him, “Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.”

Joseph Sabino Mistick is a Pittsburgh lawyer. Reach him at [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.