OPINION: Some House members’ actions after Capitol riots are not sufficient

Photo from Wikimedia Commons.

Justin Thompson, a senior studying journalism, argues that House Republicans, like Ohio Rep. Steve Stivers, are not taking all the necessary steps to condemn Capitol violence.

Please note that these views and opinions do not reflect those of The New Political.

The frightening scene that played out in the U.S. Capitol building two weeks ago — and the deepening partisan schism it ignited — joined the coronavirus and the fight for social justice on the list of concurrent crises that America must now try to resolve.

It was an insurrection, and President Donald Trump incited it. 

“If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” he told a crowd of his supporters, right after repeating claims that the election was stolen from him. You won’t get much closer to blatant incitement.

Still, few Republican lawmakers have proven their independence from Trump’s political objectives. On Wednesday, Jan. 13, only 10 of the 211 Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach him on charges of “incitement of insurrection.”

Rep. Steve Stivers from Ohio’s 15th District, which includes much of Athens County, was among the 197 lawmakers who voted not to impeach Trump. 

Stivers has failed, on more than one front, to show the level of leadership required of him since the riot at the Capitol. 

Stivers said his vote apparently hinged on his belief that the impeachment proceedings had been rushed.

“Fundamental to the republic is due process, which this snap impeachment process in the House severely undermined by its lack of hearings, presentation of evidence and committee action. The precedent set by this process is frightening,” Stivers said in a statement.

But there are some key differences to be made between a criminal trial and an impeachment trial — differences that call his vote into question.

Most notably, the standard of proof that must be met in each type of trial is different. In a criminal trial, jurors must determine if there is “probable cause” that a crime has been committed based on “clear and convincing evidence” presented to the court.

In Congress, however, where lawmakers act as jurors in impeachment trials, the threshold to convict is murkier. The Constitution does not state what standard of proof must be met in an impeachment trial, so Congress members in the past have decided on one based on their own experiences. 

A 2019 Congressional Research Service report reviewed past impeachment proceedings against former Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. It found that the benchmark set by Nixon-era lawmakers has persisted in determining how lawmakers cast their votes. On the topic of impeachment, “the question is properly left to the discretion of individual members.”

So, Stivers’ assertion that the impeachment process has been rushed would be credible in a criminal trial. 

But this is an impeachment trial. He is not bound to determine the same standard of proof, and his vote is his to cast as he chooses. His reluctance to impeach the president seems not to be rooted in concern about a rushed trial but instead rooted in his unwillingness to break with Trump.

Stivers has recently failed to courageously represent his constituents on other matters as well. 

In the past, he has been a vocal critic of extremism. He has condemned extremist violence in Israel, advanced a measure to send financial help to non-profits at risk of violence at the hands of religious extremist organizations, and, in 2014, spoke out against violent, religious fringe groups in Iraq and Syria.

Stivers has publicly condemned the violence at the Capitol, but this is not enough. On the heels of an insurrection, condemnation is the prerequisite. Action is the expectation.

If Stivers truly “stands firmly against extremists who threaten the peace,” his impeachment vote would have reflected it. But, again, he’s shown a commitment to let Trump finish out his term without legal repercussions for the violence he fomented.

In the days since the storming of the Capitol, metal detectors have been installed outside the entrance of the House floor. The majority of House members have complied with their presence, but Stivers is among a minority who have been hesitant to comply. NBC News said that the “new measure apparently has created tension between some members and police.” But on Jan. 12, Stivers tweeted his support for Capitol Police. 

The extent to which Stivers has objected to the metal detectors is unknown. Still, being included on a short list of lawmakers who resist such a common-sense measure is another strike against Stivers’ recent record of leadership. His constituents are surely worried about much more consequential problems than the perceived inconvenience that walking through a metal detector poses.

Stivers has not sufficiently represented the people of Ohio’s 15th District since the violence at the Capitol last week. He’s shown a pattern of hypocrisy, cowardice and blind devotion to an unfit leader. His actions are condemnable and should not be forgotten by voters in his district.