QQOTD: Hakeem Jeffries and Lamar Alexander
“With
President Trump, the past is prologue.”
~ Hakeem Jeffries, Closing Argument in the day 12 of the Senate Impeachment Trial of Donald J.Trump (Approximately 45 minutes into the session)
Jeffries has been the U.S. Representative for New York’s 8th congressional
district since 2013. A member of the Democratic Party, his district
covers parts of the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and
Queens.
A corporate lawyer by occupation he worked for Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison, then Viacom and CBS, before running
for and serving in the New York State Assembly from 2007 to
2012, representing the 57th Assembly District. Jeffries has also chaired the House Democratic Caucus since 2019 and,
on January 15, 2020, was appointed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to serve as a House Manager for Donald Trump’s Impeachment Trial.
“Hopefully he
won’t do that again.” (The Atlantic)
~ Senator Lamar Alexander, on 31
January 2020, after announcing he would vote to acquit and suggesting that President
Trump will “hopefully” refrain, going forward, from abusing his presidential powers
again.
Alexander is an American politician who is currently serving as the senior United States Senator from Tennessee,
a seat he has held since 2003. A member of the Republican Party, he also was
the 45th governor of Tennessee from 1979 to 1987
and the 5th United States Secretary of
Education from 1991 to 1993, where he helped the implementation of
Education 2000.
Jeffries’
assertion suggests that past behavior predicts future behavior, while Lamar
Alexander hopes that the President has learned his lesson and will avoid bad
behavior going forward. Who is correct and why?
Which
statement is stronger in its tone and certainty? Why?
What will
history eventually write about the men behind these two quotes?
“It was inappropriate for the president to
ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold
United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials
inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle
of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate
the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s
ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.
“The question then is not whether the
president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people
should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution
provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election
that begins in Iowa on Monday.”
How might such
a statement portend a change in the course of history and result in fundamental
changes to the U.S. Constitution and our Democracy?
Is it true
that the Constitution “does not give the Senate the power to remove the
president from office? and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions
that are inappropriate”? Why or why not?
If Alexander’s
assertion is correct, when might it be appropriate to convict a President of
the United States of wrongdoing?
Will history
be kind to Lamar Alexander and his legacy? Why or why not?