Chris Smith's Last Chance to Lead on Impeachment

There is no longer any question about whether Trump’s extortion of Ukraine is an impeachable offense. Even the constitutional scholar summoned by Republicans, Jonathan Turley, testified that Trump’s actions met the standard for impeachment. Turley’s only objection was to the pacing of the inquiry.

Rational individuals may debate broadening the inquiry to include Trump’s misconduct beyond Ukraine, and Turley, (who supported impeaching Bill Clinton on a similar timetable), may debate the calendar, but there is no debate in the historical record: Trump’s actions are precisely what the founders feared when including impeachment in the Constitution.

The Trump administration has not produced any exculpatory evidence, and by refusing to participate in the process has forfeited the opportunity to present a defense. Trump maintains an iron grip on congressional Republicans, who, despite receiving intelligence briefings to the contrary, still push Putin’s narrative that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in our 2016 election.

By denying clear facts and embracing conspiratorial nonsense, Republicans have placed in the balance of these impeachment proceedings not only a judgement of Trump’s actions but the primacy of reality itself. Defending against future corruption and safeguarding our elections will be impossible if half of our political system denies what is before their eyes.

One Republican with the courage to speak up could change the dynamic. We must ask Chris Smith of New Jersey’s Fourth Congressional District to be the first.

Smith’s history reveals a far lower standard for what is and is not impeachable. In November 1997, Smith and eighteen other Republicans supported Robert Barr’s resolution asking the judiciary committee to seek grounds for impeaching Bill Clinton based on an allegation that Clinton received foreign funding for his reelection. This was before the Lewinsky scandal or any subsequent perjurious denials. Later, Smith wanted the investigation to expand beyond Lewinsky, stating that he believed “very strongly that all potential matters - especially “Filegate” which in my view is the most egregious of all if true - should be looked at.”

Filegate, (an allegation that Clinton used the FBI to compile information on top Republicans), amounted to nothing. Ken Starr found no evidence of wrongdoing.

In stark contrast to his ambivalence about the Trump administration’s blanket refusal to comply with subpoenas, Smith said of Clinton that “when there’s such a lack of cooperation and stonewalling, it raises questions.”

And Smith insisted that the Obama administration send aid - the same aid that Trump withheld for political gain - to our “good friend and ally Ukraine” to counter Putin, because “people are dying.”

Smith has either had a remarkable turnaround in his opinions on presidential conduct and Ukrainian aid, or he is no more than another partisan enabler of Trump’s worst inclinations.

With an impeachment vote in the House fast approaching, this is Smith’s last chance to lead. Why hasn’t he? Surely his forty years of service fortify him enough not to fear an angry tweet from the president, and give him wisdom enough not to accept his party pushing Putin’s propaganda. Surely his decades of wide electoral victories give him the courage and authority to tell supporters that the conservative priorities they share can still be achieved under a different president respectful of the rule of law. Surely Chris Smith doesn’t want to be remembered as one of the timid masses who demurred when faced with a president - who on multiple occasions - sought and welcomed foreign interference in our most sacred democratic process: elections.

Perhaps not. Since stating that he opposed the inquiry in late September, Smith has remained silent.

In June of 1997, citing human rights concerns, Smith took a bold stance against Speaker Newt Gingrich and opposed extending China favorable trade terms through its Most Favored Nation Status. He said “I thought Newt had learned the lesson (on China). He still may. My position is not to go along lock-step but to lead. And if that means right into the wind of my party, so be it.”

Smith may have been correct. More importantly, he was willing to take a public stand. He was willing to lead.

If someone like Smith can’t summon the courage to speak up now, there is nothing left to the GOP but Trumpism. Trump’s crimes and abuses are serious, strike at the heart of our democracy, and if left unchallenged will become the norm. Republican’s alternative reality and Putin’s narrative have been allowed to take root for far too long. We need more than Smith’s vote, we need his voice. And we need it now while it can still do some good.

What will it be Congressman Smith, “go along lock-step,” or lead?