Article by Tyler O'Neil in "PJMedia":
During the impeachment debate
on Wednesday, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) asked for a moment of silence
to commemorate the 63 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump in
2016, saying the Democrats intended to "disenfranchise" them via this
"partisan impeachment sham."
"This
partisan impeachment sham seeks to disenfranchise 63 million American
voters," Johnson declared. "So I want to use my time to call on this
chamber for members to rise and observe a moment of silent reflection,
to give every member here the chance to pause for a moment and remember
the voices of the 63 million American voters the Democrats today are
wanting to silence."
As he spoke many Republican congressmen stood up behind him.
Many liberals mocked Johnson for this.
"Rep.
Bill Johnson asks for a moment of silence because Democrats are
'disenfranchising' 63 million voters," HuffPost's Matt Fuller tweeted.
"One, that's not what the word 'disenfranchise' means. Two, HILLARY
CLINTON LITERALLY GOT 2.8 MILLION MORE VOTES THAN TRUMP."
Fuller is correct
about the word choice. "Disenfranchise" means "to deprive someone of the
right to vote," rather than to revoke someone's vote after it has
already been cast. Johnson's word choice was off, but he made an
important point: the effect of nullifying the election is similar to
disenfranchisement.
As for
Fuller's second point, under America's Constitution, the Electoral
College determines the presidency, not the popular vote. Trump won by
the rules of the game, which are fair because they represent the smaller
states as well as the larger and more populous states. Furthermore,
even if America had a popular vote system, it would likely require a
majority to win the presidency, and Hillary Clinton did not win a
majority of votes, only a plurality.
Politico's Sarah Ferris mocked the moment of silence, suggesting Johnson was lamenting Trump's victory.
"Republicans just held a moment of silence on the floor for the results of the 2016 election," she tweeted. How clever!
While Johnson's
moment of silence is arguably a stunt, it highlights an important point
-- ironically a similar point to the one Democrats made during the 1996
impeachment of Bill Clinton. Impeachment is not by its nature the
reversal of an election, but it does involve attempting to remove a
duly-elected president.
In
the case of Bill Clinton, the impeachment had some weight to it: actual
crimes were committed, even if many Democrats said they did not amount
to high crimes. In the case of Donald Trump, many Republicans dispute
the idea that the underlying activity constitutes a crime at all. Worse,
many Democrats have been demanding Trump's impeachment since before his inauguration.
Democrats
are arguably weaponizing impeachment as another excuse to attack the
president they despise, rather than to hold him accountable for any
truly egregious behavior. In this situation, Bill Johnson's moment of
silence is quite defensible.
