Throughout the world, United States of America is unrivalled in gun violence and sensation. In fact, it is not American if the issue is not sensational and once that level is attained, there is no limit as the entire world is somewhat charmed. Such is the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of office/power and obstruction of American Congress (parliament) from performing its oversight functions.
The trial was some forward or backward push until a Harvard University Professor Alan Dershowitz emerged at the trial to, as he put it, speak for the country rather than President Trump, notwithstanding the fact that he appeared as part of the Trump defence team. Whatever an observer’s view on the impeachment trial, there was no doubt about Dershowitz’s charm, despite standing almost everything on it’s head – history, logic, even his credibility. But in return, Professor Dershowitz’s delivery and scholarship made up for all doubt.
Throughout his submission into the early hours of the morning (African/European time), Dershowitz compelled rapt attention from viewers throughout the world. Persuasive, authoritative, coherent, unyielding, communicative and all in a world of his own, the Harvard law professor landed comfortably despite his heavy bargage. Aside from his claim of patriotism, or at least neutrality, Dershowitz was exposed by the media as the chief prosecutor of ex-President Bill Clinton on his sex scandal with a female intern in his office. More remarkably, Professor Dershowitz’s intended decisive blow against Clinton was his submission that any allegation against a sitting President “does not have to be criminal in nature” to reach the level for impeachment in February 1999. Currently in defence of Donald Trump, law scholar Dershowitz not only maintains his neutrality but also submits that any impeachable allegation against an American President must attain the level of a criminal offence, a complete opposite of his prosecution of Bill Clinton.
Nevertheless, Dershowitz is a delight for any listener or viewer. Indeed, for any Nigerian aspiring or practising lawyer who might not have watched the man’s performance, it was a great miss, whether of a lecturer or an advocate. You don’t even have to be an aspiring or practising lawyer. Whatever wrong levelled against Donald Trump by his impeachers was in every aspect a legal, legitimate and political imperative. Dershowitz further added that to abuse public office to enhance electoral advantage in an on-coming election is a right for any American President under the country’s constitution as no contestant goes to an election without a determination to win. In any case, in the strange doctrine of the law professor, every President seeking re-election presumes himself the best candidate. For now, the trial seems stalled with the odds in favour of Donald Trump, no matter the duration of the exercise.
Donald Trump is accused of of extorting the services of Ukraine, a foreign country, to scandalise a potential opponent of Trump in the 2020 presidential election, former Vice-President Joe Biden. Till now, Trump and his defence team deny the allegation. But Dershowitz even submitted that seeking foreign assistance could be done in national interest and cited many past American Presidents with such record for advantage in elections. The crux was that both Trump and his defence team denied seeking any foreign assistance, in the absence of any witness to dispute Trump’s claim. Nigeria’s Olusegun Obasanjo similarly denied ever discussing third term plot with anybody.
However, a dismissed former National Security Adviser to President Trump suddenly offered to testify at the impeachment trial, amid speculation that Bolton would tell it all against his former boss, including the fact that, after Trump made known his intention, John Bolton in turn expressed concern to some other colleagues. Dershowitz contemptuously dismissed the unsolicited offer on the ground that whatever evidence John Bolton was going to give, “EVEN IF TRUE”, would never rise to the level of impeachable crime, especially warranting the removal of a sitting President from office.
One major reason by political critics against taking the evidence of John Bolton was that whatever value from such an exercise was available to the House of Representatives investigative committee, which failed to invite or indeed subpoena him. But the prosecutors responded that John Bolton not only indicated unwillingness to appear but also that, at the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, the Senate committee took additional statements from over 40 new witnesses who did not testify before House of Representatives investigative committee, thereby debunking claims of defence that it is not the business of the Senate trial committee to invite witnesses
Professor Dershowitz’s submission and counter-submission were ever almost irresistible, such that a lecture tour of many countries in the world would attract large audience for him at every stop. But, wait a minute. That would be only if you missed how all his legal, political and logical theories were shred by the prosecutors, especially chairman of House of Representatives intelligence committee, Adam Schiff, who, so far, has emerged almost from obscurity to a political rising star for opposition Democrats. Unfortunately, a major part of the rules is complete silence throughout the daily proceedings, strictly at the pain of summary imprisonment for any violation. Otherwise, lead prosecutor, congressman Adam Schiff, would have been drawing prolonged deafening cheers for his handling of the prosecution’s case against Donald Trump.
Whichever way the impeachment trial goes, even if Trump is found guilty, he is certain not to be removed from office, just like ex-President Clinton. The sad and major reason would be that, unlike the case of Clinton, when the verdict was reached across (rather than along) party lines, the proceedings, for the first time in United States, the standard of impeachment trial fell to a disgraceful third world low, determined by frightening political/party partisanship. Such a decision could only be for Democrats or Republicans rather than American national interests. There can be no merit as in the past, when verdicts were reached across the isle.
In American politics, the name is bi-partisanship. Not something like no victor, no vanquished, but still far from crude party solidarity.
For example, whatever the faults of Donald Trump, the fact remains that, even if for his selfish political purposes, he confronted vital issue of corruption, for which American public office holders/media are ever too eager to paint developing countries in lurid colours – corruption. Trump was accused of extorting the assistance of a foreign country to expose possible abuse of office against former Vice-President Joe Biden. As Biden was assigned the task of handling American concerns on corruption in Ukraine’s oil/gas industry. It turned out that Biden’s son, Hunter, allegedly secured a mouth-watering soft consultancy in a Ukrainian oil/gas industry owned by a government official.
Hunter Biden was collecting $50,000 per month. That was a booty worth probing. The method and for what purpose Trump employed or had in mind should not befog the secondary issue of public moralty. At least a charge exists, even now, for Joe Biden to defend himself..
That also should not earn Trump outright acquittal. Luckily, no matter how long, he will survive. That would be a dangerous precedent for Donald Trumps of the future. On this occasion, the defence team would have succeeded in unleashing him on America inadvertently, if re-elected, as he may just be, in view of the insinuatory submission of the defence that American constitution was not crafted for easy removal of Presidents from office. Otherwise, the simple question is: what will ever be the conduct or misconduct of an America President to earn him removal from office?
Today is the D-Day for Americans to determine Trump’s fate on (a) whether the impeachment panel requires additional evidence at all (b) shouldTrump’s ex-National Security Adviser be subpoenaed to testify (c) if not, is Donald Trump guilty or innocent of abuse of office? (d) is Trump guilty of obstructing American Congress?
That is America, their America. If dissatisfied with any verdict, the outside world can go to blazes.
Postscript: Copyright for the above headline is the preserve of J.P. Clark, who, by the way, is our in-law in Ijebu-Ode, Ogun State, married to Ebun, of that most distinguished Odutola family.
Some tact, Governor Lalong
Fate has caught up with Governor Simon Lalong of Plateau State in matters of political tact. While the row over the need for special security outfit for states raged, in view of the clear incapability of police and armed forces to combat insecurity in Nigeria continues to dawn on states, it is understandable that the governor was rattled by the latest unexplained killings in his state. For the second time in about a fortnight (or even less), the casualty figure remained constant at over 10.
In reaction, Lalong completely lost his cool. He reportedly spoke his mind and angrily walked out from a security briefing by the state police commissioner. The governor then ordered police to arrest leaders of those suspected to be responsible for the intermitent killings of innocent residents of the state. Media reports quoted the governor as directing police to make sure leaders of the suspected killers disclosed the identity and whereabouts of the culprits. The only problem with that order is that nobody arrested in Nigeria can be detained for more than 48 hours without a court order.
It appeared that, eventually, Lalong developed some guts to defend his people. Otherwise, all along, the governor displayed line of least resistance (if any) against violence often unleashed against his people by yet unknown murderers for the past almost five years. This time, Lalong even gave reasons for his courage with an implied expression for a showdown with anybody from any quarters. Acccording to Lalong, and quite rightly too, he has no more elections to contest after his successful re-election recently upheld by Supreme Court. Truly, who would be in Lalong’s position and fail to call such bluff? He was unrestrained as he went the whole hog by revealing that he does not need anybody’s (yes, anybody’s) support or votes.
In effect, he was timid all along because he needed the second term and somebody’s support for that? Otherwise, Lalong, with his outburst, has made himself a laughing stock for his immediate neighbour, Governor Samuel Ortom of Benue State. Some two years ago, Ortom was overwhelmed by the alarming, unceasing and ever-rising fatal casualties of violence by armed criminals operating at night. On one occasion, at least 73 corpses were lined up to be buried that day, all victims of culprits suspected to be from outside Benue state and not from Plateau State.
As a matter of urgent public duty, Governor Samuel Ortom rushed out regulations to check criminal activities of herdsmen from both outside and within the state. The leadership of the herdsmen not only publicly vowed to render the new regulations ineffective but also increased the level of violenc and resultant fatal casualty figures, both of which heightened nationwide tension and concern. For the sake of humanity, a neighbour should be understanding with commensurate sympathy.
Instead, Governor Lalong openly undermined Governor Ortom with what later turned out to be a false claim that he (Lalong) foresaw the renewed violence, which greeted the new regulations in Benue State and that he (Lalong) had forewarned Governor Ortom against his bold move. Governor Ortom denied everything with the explanation that he and Lalong never discussed the matter at any place or time to warrant being warned against introducing the regulations.
To be fair to Plateau State Governor Lalong, he admitted he was wrong in all his allegations. That apology was tendered at a special media chat. That was a humiliating climb-down, which was avoidable if only he privately talked to his neighbour. It is also an irony today that while Benue State is enjoying some peace with increased safety for residents, Plateau State now reels in more regular bloodshed.
The genuine advice is for Governor Lalong to establish Plateau’s version of private security outfit.