Last Sunday, Journal guest columnist Nick Gier wrote a long piece on the corruption of President Donald Trump, his family and administration. At the same time, Idaho’s 2nd district congressman Mike Simpson wrote a defense of his vote against Trump’s impeachment. Simpson covered some of the same ground as Gier in his defense of Trump.

A big difference to notice is that Gier provides us with generally known facts, such as Trump University was a scheme to defraud students by promises coupled with very high tuition that was not transparently presented. Promises were not kept. Gier’s evidence was that Trump was forced to make a $25 million damage settlement with the students by order of a federal district court. The case was the one in which Trump said the judge must be biased because he had a Mexican heritage.

Rep. Simpson’s piece tells us to know the facts concerning the impeachment he would be voting on, but I don’t think he made much of an effort.

Simpson’s writing points are mostly just rhetorical devices — name calling and motive questioning. Arguing this way is not true or false. It is only a method, but he did give a recitation of his party’s talking points on impeachment. These could be true or false. He presents them as though they are, but I think they are either false or he draws unsupported conclusions.

Here we go. Simpson rejects the impeachment article of “abuse of presidential power.” His reasons are these.

He tells us that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told us multiple times he felt no pressure to start an investigation of the Bidens. This is false.

Please recall that Zelensky is a brand new Ukrainian President. He is clearly under pressure from Trump who “wanted a favor though,” but also pressure from his own parliament. Then there is Vladimir Putin who is physically attacking Ukraine and wants to annex part of it into Russia. Zelensky is a man with no leverage.

He really has the short end of the stick, so how could Zelensky be an honest, objective source of information about the infamous July 25, 2019, phone call with election advantage seeking Trump?

Simpson said Zelensky, at the time of the phone call, didn’t even know Trump had withheld the $400 million in military aid appropriated by Congress to help fight the Russian invasion. This is false, too.

The impeachment hearings had credible witnesses such as acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor Jr. who had talked to Zelensky’s national security adviser just days before Trump’s call with President Zelensky. Ambassador Taylor said the adviser had already told Zelensky about the aid holdback and Zelensky told the national security adviser that he “did not want to be used as an instrument in a U.S. re-election campaign.”

So Zelensky knew the promised aid had not arrived and he knew why — Trump’s re-election campaign — before the call. Did he have a choice whether to cooperate with Trump? Well, it never got that far because of the whistleblower telling Congress about the phone call of July 25. Yes, I’m talking about that whistleblower Trump hates for telling Congress about the call and that it was certainly not “perfect.”

Simpson next uses the common Republican argument that when it was all said and done, the military aid did arrive and no investigation of Bidens was ever announced. Simpson is saying, “So where’s the problem?”

Here’s the problem. If I went to rob a liquor store and said, “Give me your money,” but the police came before I grabbed the loot and ran, would police just let me go? If I told someone I’d shoot an enemy of theirs, but when I tried my gun jammed, would everyone say, “Hey, what’s the problem? No one was hurt.”

There’s another thing wrong about Trump’s action. Simpson doesn’t mention it and the general realization of it came after the impeachment hearings. Legally, no president can unilaterally withhold the expenditure of already appropriated funds without telling Congress and waiting 45 days for Congress to perhaps disapprove of the hold.

This was an issue in the impeachment articles against Richard Nixon. Nixon had increasingly refused to release congressionally appropriated funds for certain programs he didn’t like. I remember in particular one was billions of dollars for water pollution control. Congress insisted presidents should be legally required to spend all funds. Congress made it law. They passed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

Under the law since 1974, if the president wants to spend less money than Congress provided for some purpose, then he must notify Congress and ask for a “recission.” After 45 days, the recission is automatically granted to the president unless Congress votes block the recission. This 45-day window is an important matter, especially in the Trump case, because a president absolutely cannot ask for a recission of funds when there’s less than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year.

Trump, however, went ahead and withheld the funds (in secret). He didn’t tell Congress he was doing it. It was a White House secret (illegal action). This could have been another impeachment article, but the knowledge just came out too late. Things like this, however, make Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s delay sending the impeachment papers to the U.S. Senate look wise to me. It seems almost every day new information about Trump corruption and illegalities emerge. Hold the papers for a while and the House might want a revote to add more impeachment articles going forward.

Simpson also rejected the second article of impeachment — obstruction of Congress. The congressman wrote: “There are perfectly legitimate avenues to resolve differences between branches of government. When administration officials did not make themselves available for a partisan, predetermined investigation, House Democrats chose to pursue the most drastic of options — impeachment).”

In fact, Trump refused to let any of his key people testify — those who had directly observed him in his Ukraine actions. Even contempt of Congress resolutions did not move the president. Trump was like Nixon in claiming executive privilege, but Trump was even more brazen. That makes Simpson’s talk about “perfectly legitimate avenues” puzzling at best. Please suggest an avenue that would work, congressman?

Now this is my speculation. Trump’s year-long blockade on letting these people testify is the act of a guilty man. Guilt explains his other actions, too, especially refusing to release his taxes. I speculate that when Congress gets Trump’s taxes or other finances, if ever, his corrupt and perhaps treasonous life will be laid bare. I could be wrong. I won’t argue like a Republican defender. I don’t know for sure. Maybe he just doesn’t want us to see them because it is that his net worth is really very low, or some other reason. However, Trump is hiding things even though he’s never publicity shy.

Simpson argues that taking an impeachment vote does more damage than good and further divides our country. I suppose division might go down if people ignored Trump’s Ukraine-Bidens investigation scheme. It would also reduce division if no one objected to foreign manipulation of our vote totals (or domestic ballot stuffing either).

My lifetime experiences of elections and from studying a bit of history is that presidential elections are always divisive, though sometimes more than another. Divisive elections are better than no elections or rigged ones.

I could argue that the 2020 elections will be the most divisive, disruptive, discordant in America’s history and Trump took the first big step making is so with this Ukraine scheme. The impeachment and trial will probably not remove Trump, but it might warm him and his campaign they’re being watched.

Republicans in the Senate can reduce the amount of division by having a fair trial where witnesses with likely information are called and no senator says they have their mind made up before the trial — Republican or Democrat.

Idaho is such a red state. Simpson will probably get re-elected here and he could deter primary election challengers, too, without writing his defective opinion. I feel like I have done my duty by dinging him for his poor effort, and it looks like most Trump voters don’t need an opinion written anyway. Just give them a few slogans, rallies, and weird tweets and they will be reassured Trump looks out for their interests.

Dr. Ralph Maughan of Pocatello is a professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He retired after teaching there for 36 years and specializing in elections and public opinion, congressional politics, and the politics of natural resources. He has written three backcountry outdoor guides, including “Hiking Idaho” with his wife Jackie Johnson Maughan. He has been president or chair of numerous conservation organizations.